Tribunal decisions

The decision

Upper Tribunal
(Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: AA/11913/2015

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Heard at Manchester Crown Court
Decision & Reasons Promulgated
On 10 October 2016
On 25 October 2016

Before

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE CLIVE LANE

Between

ASA
(ANONYMITY DIRECTION MADE)
Appellant

and

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT

Respondent

Representation:

For the Appellant: Mr Ouattara, IAS (Manchester)
For the Respondent: Mr McVeety, Senior Home Office Presenting Officer

DECISION AND REASONS

1. The appellant, ASA, was born in 1968 and is a male citizen of Jordan. He appealed to the First-tier Tribunal (Judge M Davies) against a decision of the respondent dated 20 August 2015 to refuse to grant him asylum and humanitarian protection. The First-tier Tribunal, in a decision promulgated on 27 June 2016, dismissed the appeal. The appellant now appeals, with permission, to the Upper Tribunal.
2. The appellant seeks to challenge the credibility findings of the judge. In brief, the appellant claimed that he owned a supermarket in Amman, Jordan. In August 2014 the appellant was asked by a former customer of the supermarket to assist her in carrying heavy shopping into her home. The appellant did so. He was subsequently confronted by the woman's mother-in-law and sister who accused him of having an affair with the woman (Mrs [J]). Subsequently, the appellant claims his property had been burnt down and that "shots were fired." The appellant moved his wife and children away from his home to the home of his wife's family. Ultimately, the appellant travelled to Jamaica on a visa but did not claim asylum there.
3. The dates in this case are confusing. The confusion begins with the appellant's own Asylum Interview Record and is repeated in the Secretary of State's refusal letter. The appellant spoke of the initial incident (carrying the shops into the house) as occurring in August 2014 and that his property was destroyed and shots were fired on 6 August 2015, "the day after the incident." The grounds of appeal complain that the judge [63] stated that the appellant had stated at a "very late stage in the asylum process" that Mrs [J] had been killed. The appellant says that he learned of the killing of this woman in November 2015 and not 2014 as the judge appeared to believe. In the light of the numerous other findings as regards the appellant's credibility (which I know in no way are associated with the findings at [62]), I do not find that the judge has seriously erred in law. It appears that the judge was told of the death of Mrs [J] at the hearing; the judge makes it clear at [62] that the evidence of the appellant "at the hearing takes his case no further forward." The judge's observations regarding the death of Mrs [J] do not appear to have materially affected his assessment of the appellant's credibility.
4. At [55] the judge found it was "wholly unbelievable" that, as the result of a single innocent incident, Mrs [J]'s family would conclude that the appellant was having a sexual relationship with her. The appellant asserts that the judge has failed to place the incident in the cultural context appertaining in Jordan.
5. I find that the ground has no merit. It is clear that the judge did have regard to the customs, traditions and social mores of Jordanian life [52]. Notwithstanding that context, it was open to the judge to conclude, on the basis of all the evidence, that it was not credible that the woman's family would react in the way claimed by the appellant. There was also no obvious contradiction between that observation and the judge's finding at [52] that, being aware of "the customs, traditions and social mores of Jordanian life," it was not credible that the appellant had set foot in the woman's home in the first instance. The point being made by the judge is that it was not culturally acceptable for the appellant as a man to enter the home of a woman who was not chaperoned but, equally, it was also not credible that such an incident alone would lead the woman's family members to be so convinced that the woman was having an affair with the appellant that they would threaten the appellant and attack his property with such vehemence. It was necessary to remember that these findings were being made in the context of the appellant's unsatisfactory immigration history. The judge recorded [54] that the appellant did not claim asylum en route to the United Kingdom in Turkey because "he did not think he could get work there." Further, the appellant had failed to give any proper explanation for his failure to claim international protection in Jamaica [53]. The question of credibility was one entirely for the judge to decide by way of an anxious but robust assessment of the evidence and I have no doubt that he has reached findings which were open to him on that evidence and has given cogent reasons for doing so. In the circumstances, the appeal is dismissed.
Notice of Decision

This appeal is dismissed.

Direction Regarding Anonymity - Rule 14 of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008

Unless and until a Tribunal or court directs otherwise, the appellant is granted anonymity. No report of these proceedings shall directly or indirectly identify him or any member of their family. This direction applies both to the appellant and to the respondent. Failure to comply with this direction could lead to contempt of court proceedings.

Signed Date 10 October 2016

Upper Tribunal Judge Clive Lane

TO THE RESPONDENT
FEE AWARD

I have dismissed the appeal. No fee order is appropriate.

Signed Date 10 October 2016

Upper Tribunal Judge Clive Lane