Tribunal decisions

The decision

Upper Tribunal
(Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: AA/13674/2015

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Heard at Field House
Decision & Reasons Promulgated
On 24 August 2016
On 12 October 2016

Before

DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE CHAPMAN

Between

mASTER A U
(ANONYMITY DIRECTION MADE)

Appellant
and

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT

Respondent
Representation:

For the Appellant: Mrs A. Mughal, legal representative, Montague Solicitors
For the Respondent: Mr C. Avery, Home Office Presenting Officer
_____________________________

ERROR OF LAW & REASONS
_____________________________

1. The Appellant is a national of Albania, born on 2 December 1997. He arrived in the United Kingdom on 1 December 2014 and claimed asylum. The basis of his claim is that his family are involved in an active blood feud with the Biba family and he feared he would be killed if he had remained or had to return to Albania. This application was refused by the Respondent on 17 December 2015. The Appellant appealed against this decision and his appeal came before First tier Tribunal Judge Abebrese for hearing on 9 June 2016. In a decision and reasons promulgated on 27 June 2016, he dismissed the appeal. He held at [20] "I found this appellant not to be credible in relation to firstly the core of his claim that he and his family are being subjected to a blood feud in Albania." The Judge further relied upon documentary evidence obtained by the Respondent from the Albanian Ministry of Interior, which identified the Appellant's family and stated "Following verifications, the above mentioned nationals and their family members do not have conflicts, revenge or blood feuds connected with them and are not confined".

2. An application for permission to appeal to the Upper Tribunal was made in time on the basis that the Judge failed to give any reasons for not finding the Appellant credible apart from the document at D1-D2. This document fails to state what checks were conducted and by whom and the Judge failed to assess this document correctly.

3. Permission to appeal was granted by First tier Tribunal Judge Andrew on the basis that:

"I do not have a copy of the Appellant's Bundle in the file of papers and can only accept that in fact that reliance on the documents was in fact in dispute. For these reasons I am satisfied that there is an arguable error of law in the decision in that the Judge did not make proper findings on the evidence before him."

Hearing

4. At the hearing before me, Mrs Mughal submitted that the whole of the findings had been put into two paragraphs and there had been no proper consideration as to the key issues viz the Appellant's credibility and Convention reason. She submitted that great weight has been attached at D1-D3 of the Respondent's bundle and that the whole determination turns on those alone. She stated that it was the Appellant's case that he does not accept the document at D1-D2 as it is unclear from the report which checks were made and there should have been a clear indication as to where the authorities went and who they questioned.

5. In his response, Mr Avery submitted that it was important to bear in mind the country guidance decision: EH (Blood Feuds) Albania CG [2012] UKUT 00348 (IAC) and the finding of the Upper Tribunal that active blood feuds are few and declining and that the Appellant must produce evidence of his profile as a potential target and whether he has been in self-confinement. He submitted that it was conspicuous from the Appellant's account that he does not satisfy either of those points. In terms of the Judge's assessment of the claim at [14] which alleges that there was a conflict between his family and the Biba family, this is a conflict based on the actions of his brother's father's paternal cousins. The only evidence the Appellant was at risk was that he was in a forest and there were gunshots. It is clear from what he said that the police were contacted by his parents and that his father approached the police to obtain protection. This is important in the context of the documents produced by the Secretary of State that there is no family feud. If there was there should have been a record since the authorities were contacted.
In the circumstances, the Judge was quite right to place significant weight on D1 and D2 of the Respondent's bundle which detailed enquiries made of the Albanian authorities as to the existence of a blood feud and this is the only reliable evidence before the Judge. The Appellant did not produce any evidence to show that he was subject to a blood feud. Even on his own evidence the Appellant failed to establish he was subject to a blood feud and the Judge's findings were entirely adequate.

6. In her reply, Mrs Mughal submitted that, with regard to the country guidance decision no proper findings were made; none of this has been said in the determination or why the conclusions have been drawn. She had not seen the Memorandum of Understanding between the British and Albanian authorities but did not take a point on the secure and confidential exchange of information given that this is a non-state agents case.

7. I confirmed that the Appellant's bundle had been re-sent and it was on the Tribunal file. I reserved my decision in order to check the terms of the Memorandum of Understanding between the UK and Albanian authorities.

Decision

8. I have been unable to find the Memorandum of Understanding regarding the exchange of information between the UK and Albanian authorities, referred to in the letter at D1-D2 of the Respondent's bundle. This is a letter from the British Embassy in Tirana dated 24 June 2016 which gives this Appellant's name and date of birth and is entitled: "Results of checks undertaken by the General Directorate of Civil Registry at the Ministry of Interior of Albania relating to the Albanian national: Amarildo Ukkaj." The author of the letter states that, with the assistance of trusted colleagues at the Albanian Ministry of the Interior, he has successfully conducted checks with the Directorate of Civil Registry at the Albanian Ministry of the Interior.
Mrs Mughal, on the Appellant's behalf, did not seek to challenge the genuineness of the document from the Albanian authorities but rather submitted that the weight to be attached to it must be reduced by virtue of the fact that no indication was given as to the source(s) of the information or the questions asked.

9. It is the case that the document is lacking in detail as to the "verifications" undertaken by the Albanian authorities, except that it they were conducted through official channels ie the Directorate of Civil Registry at the Albanian Ministry of the Interior. Nevertheless, the burden of proving his case is upon the Appellant, who does not dispute the accuracy of the recording of his family members' names or his father's date of birth, the name of his village or when or how he left Albania, via Montenegro. Nor has he produced any evidence to counter the evidence contained in the letter from the British Embassy dated 24 June 2016. In these circumstances, I consider that the First tier Tribunal Judge was entitled to place weight on the document in question and find that, contrary to his claim, the Appellant's family were not involved in a blood feud. For these reasons, I find no material error of law in the decision of First tier Tribunal Judge Abebrese.

Deputy Upper Tribunal Judge Chapman

11 October 2016