Tribunal decisions

The decision

Upper Tribunal
(Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: AA/12320/2015

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Heard at Field House
Decision and Reasons Promulgated
On 18 August 2016
On 19 August 2016

Before

Deputy Upper Tribunal Judge MANUELL

Between

T R J
(ANONYMITY Direction MADE)
Appellant
and

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent

Representation:
For the Appellant: Mrs A Vatish, Counsel (instructed by A2 Solicitors)
For the Respondent: Ms Z Ahmed, Home Office Presenting Officer

DETERMINATION AND REASONS

Introduction
1. The Appellant appealed with permission granted by Upper Tribunal Judge Kebede on 2 June 2016 against the decision of First-tier Tribunal Judge Frazer made in a decision and reasons promulgated on 14 March 2016 dismissing the Appellant's asylum, humanitarian protection and human rights appeals.
2. The Appellant had claimed to be an undocumented Kuwaiti Bidoon. The Respondent had asserted that the Appellant was Iraqi. Judge Frazer set out the Appellant's case at [2] of his decision, to which the tribunal refers, and which need not be repeated here. Judge Frazer found that the Appellant was not at all credible. At [50] he found that he was not an undocumented Bidoon. At [51] he found that the Appellant was not at risk of persecution if returned to Kuwait, and was not entitled to humanitarian protection for similar reasons. At [52] the judge found that the Appellant was not at risk of treatment contrary to Articles 2 and 3 ECHR, nor would there be a disproportionate interference with his Article 8 ECHR rights, if returned to Kuwait. Thus the appeal was dismissed.
3. Permission to appeal was initially refused in the First-tier Tribunal. When granting permission to appeal on the renewed application, Upper Tribunal Judge Kebede considered that there was no arguable merit in the attempted challenge to the judge's credibility findings, nevertheless it was arguable that Judge Frazer had failed to resolve the issue of the Appellant's nationality.
4. The Respondent filed notice under rule 24 dated 23 June 2016 indicating that the appeal was opposed. The Appellant had never claimed any fear of return to Iraq. His case was based on fear of return to Kuwait and the judge had given sustainable reasons for finding against him.
5. Standard directions were made by the tribunal and the appeal was listed for adjudication of whether or not there was a material error of law.
Submissions
6. Mrs Vatish for the Appellant relied on the grounds of appeal and on the grant of permission to appeal by the Upper Tribunal. The judge had misunderstood the Appellant's case. The judge should have dealt with the Iraqi passport/nationality issue but had not done so. That was a material error of law. The judge had accepted that the Appellant had a fair knowledge of Kuwait and had reached contradictory or unclear findings. The decision should be set aside.
7. Miss Ahmed for the Respondent relied on the Respondent's rule 24 notice. The decision and reasons disclosed no error of law. The determination showed that the judge found that the Appellant was Kuwaiti and could be returned there.
No material error of law
8. The tribunal indicated at the conclusion of submissions that it found no error of law and reserved its decision, which now follows. The current country background evidence concerning Kuwait was not in dispute before Judge Frazer. The Appellant's appeal turned on his credibility and that was found entirely wanting, for sustainable reasons which need not be repeated here.
9. No doubt it might have been an advantage for the judge to have stated his decision on nationality in clearer terms, but the reality was that the Appellant had relied on a fear of return to Kuwait and nationality was effectively subsidiary. The judge addressed that fear in detail and disbelieved the Appellant, comprehensively. The Sprakab report showed the Appellant was Kuwaiti: see [36] of the determination. The necessary implication of finding that the Appellant could be returned to Kuwait without any form of real risk was that he was Kuwaiti or habitually resident in Kuwait and so returnable there. That finding was sufficient to resolve the Appellant's appeal and no further finding was needed.
10. The tribunal finds that there was no error of law. There is no basis for interfering with the judge's decision to dismiss the Appellant's appeal, which dismissal must stand.
DECISION
The tribunal finds that there is no material error of law in the original decision, which stands unchanged

Signed Dated 18th August 2016

Deputy Upper Tribunal Judge Manuell