Tribunal decisions

The decision

Upper Tribunal
(Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: PA/00342/2015

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Heard at Newport (Columbus House)
Decision & Reasons Promulgated
On 11 October 2016
On 14 October 2016

Before

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE GRUBB

Between

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Appellant
and

a s e n
(ANONYMITY DIRECTION MADE)
Respondent

Representation:
For the Appellant: Mr I Richards, Home Office Presenting Officer
For the Respondent: Ms U Dirie instructed by Trinity Chambers Birmingham

DETERMINATION AND REASONS
1. Pursuant to rule 14 of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008 (SI 2008/2698) I make an anonymity order as the respondent ("ASEN") is a refugee. Unless the Upper Tribunal or court directs otherwise, no report of these proceedings shall directly or indirectly identify the respondent, ASEN. This direction applies to both the appellant and to the respondent and a failure to comply with this direction could lead to Contempt of Court proceedings.
2. Although this is an appeal by the Secretary of State, for convenience I will refer to the parties as they appeared before the First-tier Tribunal.
Introduction
3. The appellant is a citizen of Libya who was born on 10 August 1970. The appellant arrived in the United Kingdom on 10 November 2009 with a student visa. He remained in the UK and on 28 April 2015 he claimed asylum. On 4 June 2015, the Secretary of State refused the appellant's claim for asylum, humanitarian protection and under Art 8 of the ECHR and made a decision to remove him by way of directions under s.10 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999.
4. The appellant appealed to the First-tier Tribunal. Judge Buckwell allowed the appellant's appeal on asylum grounds and under Arts 3 and 8 of the ECHR.
5. The Secretary of State was granted permission to appeal that decision by the First-tier Tribunal (Judge Pedro) on 3 June 2016.
6. Thus, the appeal came before me.
The First-tier Tribunal's Decision
7. Judge Buckwell accepted the appellant's case. At paras 78-80 of his determination, Judge Buckwell accepted that the appellant had been a lecturer and registrar in the University of Zawia and that he had acted as a liaison person within his faculty with the Revolutionary Committee in Libya. He provided information on students who might be of concern to the Gaddafi regime. Judge Buckwell found that the appellant was someone upon whom the (then) government and security forces relied and that he occupied a position of seniority or significance. Judge Buckwell found (at [80]) that the appellant would:
"? be of interest to those now governing his part of Libya, because of his actual or perceived political opinion. His family members, who now live with him in this country, would face the consequences of that risk."
8. In reaching that finding Judge Buckwell found that the appellant fell within the risk category set out in para 3(b) of the country guidance case of AT and Others (Article 15(c): risk categories) Libya CG [2014] UKUT 318 (IAC) which states as follows:
"Having regard to the general hostile attitude of society to the former regime, the following are, in general, at real risk of persecution or Article 3 ill-treatment on return to Libya:-
?
(b) others with an association at senior level with that regime."
9. Having found the appellant to be at risk in his home area, Judge Buckwell went on in para 82 of his determination to conclude that the appellant could not safely relocate within Libya. He said this:
"I have of course considered whether it would be appropriate for the Appellant and his family to return to Libya and then to relocate to another area within the country. However the reality of that prospect would in my view not be without significant risk. The degree of risk would be sufficient to reach the threshold of risk by which would breach his absolute rights under the European Convention and would not avoid the risk of a breach to his Geneva Convention rights."
10. Thus, Judge Buckwell allowed the appellant's appeal on asylum grounds and under Art 3 of the ECHR.
Discussion
11. The Secretary of State's grounds do not challenge Judge Buckwell's finding that the appellant was at risk in his home area. Instead, the ground challenge the judge's finding in para 82 that the appellant could not internally relocate on the basis that it is inadequately reasoned. Further, if that is established, the grounds argue that the judge's conclusion in respect of Art 8 is likewise flawed.
12. In his oral submissions, Mr Richards accepted that the only challenge was to the judge's finding in para 82 in respect of internal relocation. Mr Richards, at least initially, submitted that the judge had failed to give adequate reasons and, in particular, to indicate why the appellant's relocation would "not be without significant risk".
13. Although Mr Richards drew my attention to the recent Upper Tribunal decision in FA (Libya: art 15(c)) Libya CG [2016] UKUT 00413 (IAC), he accepted that that decision only affected the country guidance in AT and Others in respect of Art 15(c) and not in relation to a risk based upon an individual's particular profile.
14. As I have already said, the judge's finding that the appellant was at risk in his home area because he fell within the risk category in para 3(v) of the head note in AT and Others is not challenged. That risk category is unaffected by FA. However, as regards internal relocation, in AT and Others at [83] the Upper Tribunal said this:
"For those in the risk categories that we have identified below we do not consider that there would be a viable alternative of internal relocation as a means of avoiding the risk of harm."
15. One of the risk categories "identified below" is that found in para 3(b) of the head note which Judge Buckwell concluded applied to the appellant. It is clear from [83] of AT and Others, that the UT concluded that a person such as the appellant, falling within that risk category, could not safely relocate. Judge Buckwell's finding in para 82 of his determination is entirely consistent with and, indeed, applies the country guidance set out in [83] of AT and Others. Although the country guidance based on [83] and set out in para 18 of the head note of AT and Others states that "in general" individuals at risk such as the appellant could not internally relocate, there was nothing before the judge, nor raised before me, which would place the appellant outside the risk that prevented his internal relocation.
16. Judge Buckwell's reasoning and decision reached in para 82 of his determination is, in my judgment, entirely consistent with and correctly applies the country guidance in AT and Others.
17. For these reasons, Judge Buckwell did not err in law in allowing the appellant's appeal on asylum grounds and under Art 3 of the ECHR.
18. In the light of that, the Secretary of State's parasitic ground challenging Judge Buckwell's decision to allow the appeal under Art 8 falls away. The grounds do not seek otherwise to challenge his decision to allow the appeal under Art 8.
Decision
19. Thus, the decision of the First-tier Tribunal to allow the appellant's appeal on asylum grounds and under Arts 3 and 8 of the ECHR did not involve the making of an error of law. The decision stands.
20. Accordingly, the Secretary of State's appeal to the Upper Tribunal is dismissed.

Signed

A Grubb
Judge of the Upper Tribunal

Date 14 October 2016