Tribunal decisions

The decision

Upper Tribunal
(Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: OA093442013

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Heard at Bradford
Decision & Reasons Promulgated
On 18 April 2016
On 14 June 2016

Before

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE CLIVE LANE

Between

The entry clearance officer
Appellant
and

nidal ahmed
(ANONYMITY DIRECTION not made)
Respondent

Representation:
For the Appellant: Mr Diwnycz, Senior Home Office Presenting Officer
For the Respondent: Ms Khan, instructed by Howells, Solicitors

DECISION AND REASONS
1. The appellant, Nidal Ahmed, was born on 25 May 1989 and is a female citizen of Sudan. The appellant appealed against the decision of the Entry Clearance Officer, dated 10 March 2013 to refuse to grant her entry clearance as the spouse of a refugee in the United Kingdom (the sponsor - Loai Abou Hamad Hasaballa). First-tier Tribunal (Judge Henderson) in a determination promulgated on 21 August 2015 allowed the appeal. The ECO now appeals, with permission, to the Upper Tribunal.
2. In summary, the grounds assert that the appellant had relied upon a false marriage certificate but also that the sponsor, in his asylum claim in the United Kingdom, had claimed that he was single, not married. The judge had employed judicial knowledge as regards the manner in which interviews were conducted, namely that they were signed by the sponsor first and before being read back to the interviewee. It was not appropriate for the judge to use judicial knowledge of such practice and it is unclear how she had derived this knowledge.
3. The judge deals with the "false" document at [36]. There was a document verification report by one of the respondent's officers dealing with their visit to the "Attestation Department" February 2013. The Department appeared to have confirmed the marriage certificate as not genuine. A letter had also been provided with English heading but the text of which was written in Arabic. There was no translation. The judge rejected that evidence since it had not been translated into English. The appellant, on the other hand, relied upon an expert report from Peter Verney. The judge deals at length with this report at [39-44]. The judge found [44] in light of all the evidence including the expert report that the marriage was genuine. Other than briefly alluding to "a false marriage certificate" the grounds contain no substantive challenge to the detailed finding of the judge.
4. As regards the employment of judicial knowledge by the judge, I find that she did not err in law. The judge has done no more than to make a finding that an error may have crept into the interview record of the sponsor which might have been noticed by him and corrected had the interview record been read back to him. As Ms Khan, for the appellant submitted, there was no evidence from the respondent that contradicted the judge's view as to how the interview had been conducted. There was no evidence, in particular, that the interview had, in fact, been read back to the sponsor. The judge was not compelled by the answers given by the sponsor at interview inevitably to find that the sponsor and the appellant had married subsequent to his flight to the United Kingdom. It was plainly open to the judge to accept that the sponsor had, as he claimed, made a mistake. The judge has given one reason as to why that mistake may have occurred; had the judge followed the logic of the grounds of appeal, then she would have had to conclude that the appellant and sponsor had lied about when they had married. The judge found otherwise and she supported her conclusions with cogent and clear reasoning; indeed, I observe that the main issue before the judge appears to have been the validity of the marriage certificate rather than the sponsor's answers in his screening interview. I am satisfied that the judge had not erred in law as asserted in the grounds or at all.
Notice of Decision
This appeal is dismissed.
No anonymity direction is made.

Signed Date 9 June 2016

Upper Tribunal Judge Clive Lane