Tribunal decisions

The decision

Upper Tribunal
(Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Numbers: AA/12172/2015
AA/12276/2015

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Heard at Bradford
Decision & Reasons Promulgated
On 13 February 2017
On 11th April 2017

Before

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE CLIVE LANE

Between

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Appellant
and

SH
lp
(ANONYMITY DIRECTION made)
Respondents

Representation:
For the Appellant: Mr Diwnycz, Senior Home Office Presenting Officer
For the Respondents: Ms Pickering, instructed by Parker Rhodes Hickmotts, Solicitors

DECISION AND REASONS
1. I shall refer to the appellant as the respondent and the respondent as the appellant (as they appeared respectively before the First-tier Tribunal). The appellant, SH, is a female citizen of Albania. She entered the United Kingdom in 2014 and subsequently claimed asylum. On 10 April 2015, a decision was made to refuse to grant her asylum and a decision was also made to remove her from the United Kingdom under Section 10 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999. The appellant appealed against that decision to the First-tier Tribunal (Judge Housego) which, in a decision promulgated on 30 August 2016, allowed the appeal on asylum and human rights (Articles 2/3) grounds. The Secretary of State now appeals, with permission, to the Upper Tribunal.
2. There are two grounds of appeal. First, the Secretary of State asserts that the judge made a material misdirection on law. The judge referred to a country guidance case (TD and AD (Trafficked women) CG [2016] UKUT 92 (IAC)) notwithstanding the fact that the appellant was not found to be a victim of trafficking. The judge had attached inadequate weight to the lack of medical/mental health evidence concerning the appellant. The judge had adopted a “tick box exercise” in finding that she had “most of the risk factors” identified in TD. The judge had erred by finding the appellant was a member of a particular social group “simply because she is, in effect, a single mum.”
3. The judge had produced an extremely detailed decision. I acknowledge that there is (to use the respondent’s phrase) an element of “ticking the boxes” in the judge’s assessment of risk. At [83], the judge wrote:
In this case it is relevant that whatever the case when trafficking when looking at the factors in TD it is accepted that the appellant is from a family with low social status, has a low level of education, has an illegitimate child and is from the (backward) north of Albania. Accordingly, she has most of the risk factors facing a lone woman on return. Of the remaining two, the first is age. At 26, the appellant is not at as muchrisk on account of her age than if younger, but is still within the target demographic of traffickers. Second is mental health, there is no evidence that her mental health is seriously adversely affected.
4. The judge observes that the appellant may be vulnerable on return to Albania notwithstanding the fact that she has not been trafficked in the past. I see no problem with the judge applying to the circumstances of this appellant the factors indicating vulnerability set out in the case of TD; it appears that those factors may well apply to a lone woman returning to Albania irrespective of whether or not she had in the past been trafficked. The respondent fails to explain why the fact that the appellant has not been trafficked should make those factors described by the judge at [83] less pertinent in her case. It is not enough simply to say that TD is a trafficking case and therefore can only apply to returning women who have been trafficked.
5. Likewise, I have no problem with the judge’s characterising the appellant as a member of a particular social group, that is, unmarried single mothers with illegitimate children. In any event, even if the judge were wrong to do so, that ground of appeal would not undermine the judge’s findings in respect of Article 3 ECHR.
6. As regards the weight at which the judge has attached to various items of evidence (or the absence of such items) that was, with respect to the respondent, entirely a matter for the judge.
7. The second ground of appeal challenges the judge’s findings in respect of credibility. At [66], the judge listed a range of matters which he considered to be “conundrums” arising from the appellant’s evidence. Notwithstanding those problems, the judge went on to find that the appellant’s family had “violently disapproved of the relationship with [L].” The judge has conducted his analysis in a manner which is not legally flawed. He has set out those elements of the appellant’s case which he found difficult to accept (so called “conundrums”). He then indicates, “the things that are known to be facts” followed by those items which he found, in his own analysis and applying the appropriate standard of proof, to be true [68]. The grounds complain that there is little or nor reasoning but this is not the case; the judge has separated his findings [68] from the “discussion and conclusion on facts” which appears at [69] and following. There is no inconsistency or irrationality regarding the judge’s approach to the evidence.
8. I find that the judge has properly assessed all the relevant evidence and he has reached findings which were open to him on that evidence and has supported the findings with sufficient reasons. A different Tribunal may have reached a different conclusion but that is not the point. I find that the appeal should be 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 1 March 2017

Upper Tribunal Judge Clive Lane

TO THE RESPONDENT
FEE AWARD

No fee is payable.

Signed Date 1 March 2017

Upper Tribunal Judge Clive Lane