Tribunal decisions

The decision

IAC-BH-PMP-V1

Upper Tribunal
(Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: PA/00720/2015

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Heard at Field House
Decision & Reasons Promulgated
On 5th January 2017
On 13th February 2017

Before

DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE I A M MURRAY

Between

ka
(ANONYMITY DIRECTION made)
Appellant
and

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent

Representation:
For the Appellant: Mr Reynolds, Counsel, for Duncan Lewis & Co Solicitors, Harrow
For the Respondent: Mr T Wilding, Home Office Presenting Officer

DECISION AND REASONS
1. The Appellant is a citizen of Ethiopia born on 1st January 1987. He appealed against the decision of the Respondent dated 31st July 2015 refusing his asylum appeal, his humanitarian protection appeal and his human rights appeal. His appeal was heard by Judge of the First-tier Tribunal Barrowclough on 18th May 2016 and dismissed in a decision promulgated on 3rd June 2016.
2. An application for permission to appeal was made. Permission to appeal was granted by Judge of the Upper Tribunal Canavan on 3rd August 2016. The permission states that it is arguable that the judge's findings relating to risk on return as a member of the Oromo community were inadequate, given the nature of the up-to-date background evidence which the judge acknowledged, which shows worsening conditions for Oromo people in Ethiopia. The permission refers to evidence of the Appellant's activities in the United Kingdom which could be relevant to the possibility of continued activity on return and states that the judge needed to engage with the evidence in more detail, in order to give anxious scrutiny to the potential risk on return.
3. A Rule 24 response was submitted which states that the judge found the Appellant to lack credibility, notwithstanding his acceptance that the Appellant attended two meetings/demonstrations in the United Kingdom and that the Oromo community in Wales is sympathetic to and supportive of the OLF. The judge found the Appellant's sur place activities to be relatively low-key, limited and recent and found there was no evidence to suggest that they would have come to the attention of the authorities in Ethiopia. The response goes on to state that the judge clearly had in mind the updated background evidence since the case of MB (Ethiopia) [2007] UKAIT 00030 as he specifically referred to this in paragraph 36 of his decision and that the judge's decision that the Appellant was not at risk on return is sufficiently explained and justified at the end of this paragraph, and that it is evident from the decision that the judge is fully mindful of the extent of the Appellant's activities in the UK and has reached his decision following consideration of that. The response states that the judge was entitled to his conclusion and that the grounds amount merely to a disagreement.
4. On 9th November 2016 the Appellant appeared before me and I found that there was a material error of law in the First-tier Tribunal's decision for the reasons stated in the grounds. The Appellant's representative submitted additional Grounds of Appeal, pointing out that the First-tier Tribunal has not challenged the witness statements of Hamid Kairouz and Maroun Kairouz. I directed a second stage hearing on all counts. I directed that the terms of the witness statements of Hamid Kairouz and Maroun Kairouz should be accepted as fact.
5. I was prepared to hold a second stage hearing there and then but was told that at that time there was no interpreter available for the Appellant. Also the Presenting Officer wanted to check whether the Secretary of State has a policy relating to the Oromo community returning to Ethiopia as he found that if the Tribunal requires to go further than what is in the said country guidance case, for the Appellant to succeed, compelling evidence will be needed. The Presenting Officer asked me to adjourn the second stage hearing and this was supported by the Appellant's representative who submitted that he will be seeking expert evidence for the second stage hearing as the background evidence reveals a crackdown on the Oromo people in Ethiopia since December 2015.
6. This is the adjourned hearing.
The Hearing
7. I was handed an updated bundle by Counsel for the Appellant. Reference is made to an interview with the Oromo Media Network. I found that this could be dealt with through oral evidence and did not accept the transcript of the interview as it had not been submitted on time.
8. The Presenting Officer submitted that the Appellant's activities in the United Kingdom are separate from his ethnicity claim. It was pointed out by Counsel that my decision, promulgated on 6th December 2016 are that the second stage hearing has to deal with all issues.
9. With reference to the first stage hearing, I asked if the Appellant has an expert report and was told that he has not. I asked if the Home Office has a policy on the Oromo community returning to Ethiopia and was told that it does not.
10. The Appellant took the stand and asked that his two statements which are on file be used as evidence for the hearing. One is in the Appellant's first bundle and the other is in the Appellant's second bundle.
11. The Appellant was referred to his most recent statement at paragraph 7, in which he states that he attended a demonstration in London on 11th October 2016. This date is after the date of the First-tier hearing and after the date when the First-tier Judge dismissed the Appellant's appeal. The Appellant said the demonstration was put on YouTube and said that he has also posted it on his Facebook page. Facebook entries were provided. In his second statement the Appellant also refers to a meeting organised through the Oromo community in London which took place on 22nd and 23rd October 2016. There is also a video clip of the Appellant being interviewed. A photograph of this is at page 9 of the Appellant's second bundle. He was asked what he was interviewed about and he said he was interviewed about the situation for the Oromo people in Ethiopia and how they can be helped. He said the interview was done to raise awareness and to raise money. He said the interview took seven minutes and he was asked who put it on YouTube and he said the Oromo Media Network put it on YouTube. He was asked what the Oromo media network is and he said it was established by the Oromo international community to bring the Oromo people's situation to light. He was asked why he was interviewed and he said it was to find out more about the demonstration.
12. The Presenting Officer cross-examined the Appellant. The Appellant's evidence is that his wife is in Ethiopia and he was asked when he last spoke to her. He said it was in 2013 when he was going to his work. He was asked if he has tried calling her since he came to the United Kingdom and he said he does not have a number for her. He was asked if his house in Ethiopia has a telephone and he said it does not and his wife does not have a mobile phone. He was asked if he has written to his wife and he said he has not. He was asked why and he said Ethiopia is not like the United Kingdom. There are no street names or numbers or postcodes. He said she would not receive a letter if he sent one to her.
13. The Appellant was asked about his siblings in Ethiopia and if he has tried to contact them but he said he has not. They live in the same area the Appellant lived in. He said they do not have phones either.
14. The Appellant was asked about his evidence that after he escaped from detention in Ethiopia he stayed with a friend there. He said this was his father's friend and he was asked how long he stayed there. He said for fifteen days and that his father's friend lives a day's walk away from where his own house is. He was asked how far his father's friend lives from the detention centre and he said that when he escaped he slept in a forest and then travelled for a day. He was asked how he knew what direction to take and he said he had been there before. He said he stayed in the forest at night and during the day walked to his father's friend's house. He was asked if he had been hiding in the forest and he said he had.
15. The Appellant was referred to the Home Office bundle and his asylum interview when he was asked: "Where did you run to?" His answer was that he ran through the forest heading towards the area he was born in. At interview he was asked how far away that was and his answer was that he walked the whole night and spent the day hiding. This seems to be the opposite of what he is now telling the Tribunal. He was asked how far his house is from the prison and he said eight or nine hours' walk. It was put to him that his evidence at interview seemed to be that he walked towards his father's friend's house as soon as he escaped but the Appellant said that he walked to start with and then slept and then travelled by day to his father's friend's house.
16. The Appellant was asked when he first became involved with the OLF and he said it was in February 2013 but he had been hoping to join them before that. He said that before he joined, the police had been at his house on a number of occasions. He was asked why they had been at the house and he said his father had been involved with the OLF and was arrested in 2005. He said he had been told that his father had died in detention in 2012. He said the police had wanted to know the names of the people his father had worked with. He was asked who was living at the house after his father was taken away in 2005 and he said he lived there with his mother and his brothers. At that point the Appellant was not in the OLF. He was asked if his mother was in the OLF and he said she was not. He was asked if his brothers were members and he said he does not know. He was asked if he never talked about this to his brothers and he said that it is a secret organisation, so he did not talk to them about it. He said it is also a banned organisation.
17. The Appellant was asked why he joined the OLF and he said he liked the organisation and was worried about the problems the Oromo people were having in Ethiopia. At one point the Appellant stated that the police went to his house about a hundred times in one year.
18. The Appellant said his family did not talk about the OLF because it was dangerous to do so. He was asked about joining in February 2013 and he was asked if at that time the OLF knew that his father had been a member. He said they did. He said he had told them that the police kept going to his house. He was asked why he was allowed to join if the OLF knew the police kept going to his house. He said the OLF saw that he was ready to die for the cause. He said he used to write poems and send them to the OLF and they trusted him. He said friends at school gave them his poems before 2013.
19. The Appellant was asked about his work in a hotel and he was asked if the hotel was in his home town and he said it was not, it was an hour's walk away. He said he had two days off a week and lived at the hotel five days a week. He was asked if he had been at the house or at the hotel when he was arrested and he said he had been at the hotel. He said they beat him and then took him into detention. He said it was not just him, the hotel owner and other workers were taken into detention. He said the other workers were released so it was just him and the hotel owner eventually who were detained. He was asked why he was arrested and he said he was accused of helping the OLF as they sometimes stayed in the hotel. He was asked why the hotel owner was taken and he said he does not know. He was asked why the other workers were released and he said he does not know. He said he, the Appellant, was taken to the police station and questioned and the main thing the police were concerned about was that he had helped OLF members at the hotel. He said he was kept at the police station for two months. I was referred to the Home Office refusal letter dated 31st July 2015 at paragraph 3(i) which refers to the Appellant stating that he was detained for one month for sheltering members of the OLF. He said the police also went to his house and asked about his father. He was asked how he knows that and he said that the police told him and they had searched his house and found some documents. He said he does not know all the documents they found but they found a poem he had written and a cassette which praised the OLF. He said the police did not mention anything else. He was asked why these things were at his house when the police kept coming around looking for evidence and he said he had hidden them and he does not know how they found them. He was again asked why he had these in his house and he said he loved the cassette and the poem and wanted to keep them. He said he was kept at the police station for two months and beaten.
20. The Appellant was referred to question 81 of his asylum interview. He was asked when the OLF became a banned organisation and he said 1992. He was asked how often he was beaten and he said if the police wanted information from him he was beaten sometimes one, two or three times a week with sticks. He said they would punch and kick him and the beatings would last between five and ten minutes. He said they beat him if he could not answer the questions they asked him and he was asked why he was moved to a detention centre after two months' detention in the police station. He said he does not know.
21. He was asked about his time in Ginir Detention Centre and if he was treated any differently there. He said he was questioned about the cassette and the poem. He said his treatment was the same as at the police station. It was put to him that at interview he said that in Ginir he was locked in a room unless he was being interrogated and he said that is correct. He was asked how many times he was interrogated at Ginir but he said he cannot remember. He said others were interrogated too. He said there were about 50 or 60 people in his cell and it was a small cell. They had to use a bottle if they wanted to go to the toilet. He said the guards would bring in food but everyone had to eat from the one plate. He said visitors to the prison would bring food as well. He was asked if his family knew he was in prison and he said he is not sure. He said that he was taken to the toilet but it was in the same building which was not really a building, it was more like a compound. He was asked what size the compound was and he said he is not sure but he thinks there were about six or seven rooms. He said there were other prisoners there but he does not know how many. He said he could hear them. He was asked how many guards would take him to the toilet and he said one or two. He said he was in Ginir for five months. He was asked how many guards were there but he said he does not know. He said he did not speak to any of them, they all had guns. He was asked if the guard who took him to be interrogated was the person who interrogated him and he said he was not.
22. The Appellant was asked about the day he escaped and he was asked if he had planned this but he said he had not. He said the prisoners would discuss escaping. He was referred to his interview in which he states that his guard was overpowered and that is how he escaped. He was asked how many of them escaped and he said he does not know but some prisoners were killed. At his asylum interview he stated that three or four people were killed. He said that these three or four people were not killed when they escaped, they were killed before that and that is why they decided to escape, as if they were going to die anyway, they would rather die escaping.
23. The Appellant was asked how far he ran after he broke out of the room and he said he cannot remember but he ran to the fence which was about two metres high. He said he had to jump up to get over the fence.
24. It was put to the Appellant that at his screening interview he said he was detained for one month, not seven months. He said that is not correct, it was seven months. There is an e-mail dated 20th July 2015 correcting this. He said he did not realise there was this mistake until he got his solicitor involved.
25. In the Appellant's first bundle there is a letter from Dr Berri of the OLF in the UK. It is dated 10th February 2016 and the Appellant was asked if he has met Dr Berri. He said he met him in August 2015 at a meeting of the Oromo people in London. He could not remember where the meeting was. He was asked why Dr Berri does not refer to meeting him in person in his letter. The Appellant said he does not know but he also spoke to him on the telephone. In the letter there is a description of what the Appellant states happened to him but it was put to the Appellant that he did not know Dr Berri in Ethiopia, so what is in the letter is what he told Dr Berri. Dr Berri makes no mention of the Ginir Detention Centre in his letter. The Appellant said he does not know why.
26. The Appellant said that he left Ethiopia fifteen days after he left the detention centre and he stayed with his father's friend for that fifteen days. He said his father's friend paid the agent but he does not know how much he paid. He said he helped him because he was a friend of his father and he left Ethiopia at the end of December 2013 or the beginning of January 2014. He said he went to Sudan for one and a half months and then to Libya for five months but he was detained in Libya and was made to work. He said he did labouring but he was not paid. He was asked how he could afford to get to Europe. He said that the person he was working for treated him badly so he and one other person decided to escape and that person took him to another agent. He was asked who paid the agent and he said people contributed money. He said he did not know them personally he just met them in Libya. He was asked why they helped him and he said he explained his situation and they decided he should be helped. He said the agent also charged him less. He left Libya in August 2014. He said he had been labouring in Libya for three months but it was pointed out that at interview he said he was in Libya for five months. He said he then went to Italy and was there for two days and then went to France by train. He said he then came to the United Kingdom. It was put to him that he did not arrive in the United Kingdom until 4th June 2015 but based on the timeline in his account, he should have arrived in September 2014. He said he cannot remember the dates but he was in prison in Libya for three months and then worked for three months. The Presenting Officer put to the Appellant that he is just making this up. He said he is not making it up.
27. The Presenting Officer put to the Appellant that he went to the demonstrations in the United Kingdom to bolster his claim and he said that is not the case.
28. The date of the refusal letter is 31st July 2015 and the Appellant went to the demonstrations in London in March 2016 after his application was refused. He went to the demonstrations before his appeal hearing. The judge at the appeal hearing was aware of this.
29. I asked the Appellant about the Oromo community in Wales and he said there are 45 members. He said he could not remember the date when he went to his first demonstration in the United Kingdom. He admitted that it was after he received the refusal letter from the Home Office. I asked him when he joined the OLF in Wales and he said 10th October 2015 after he received the refusal letter from the Home Office.
30. Counsel for the Appellant asked the Appellant when he went to his first demonstration in the United Kingdom. Dr Berri's letter refers to a meeting in August 2015. He was asked if he went to a demonstration before that date but the first demonstration he went to appears to have been in August 2015.
31. Counsel asked the Appellant about his screening interview in which he states that he was detained because he was accused of sheltering members of the Oromo Liberation Front. He goes on to state that he was in Libya for three months and was forced to do unpaid work. His screening interview was in June 2015 and he was asked how long before that he was in Libya but he said he cannot remember. In the solicitors' letter it is stated that he was detained for five months in Libya and then worked for three months. The Appellant said that he cannot remember the exact dates. He was asked if he has seen a doctor and he said he got a blood test from a doctor and he was asked if he had ever been examined for anything else by a doctor and he said he had not but he was told to go back for a check-up but he did not go. He had no letter from that doctor.
32. The Appellant was asked about the police going to his home in Ethiopia. He was asked how often they went. He said they came now and then, more frequently at the beginning but they kept coming. The Appellant said he has always said he was not sure of the number of times the police went to his house but they did go frequently. He said at interview that perhaps they came a hundred times but he said that was just an estimate. He said maybe once a week or even just once a month. He said that was before he was arrested. His evidence that they came a hundred times in 2012 means that they must have come every three days but the Appellant said again, this is just an approximate figure.
33. I asked Counsel to ask the Appellant what his activities would be on return to Ethiopia. Counsel asked him about this and he said on return he will be sympathetic to the OLF. He said if he goes back and if the country is safe he will help the Oromo people in any way he can but he cannot do that if the situation is still the way it is now as he will be put in prison. He was asked what he will do if it is safe to help the people there and he said he will go back and he was asked if he will take part in protests and he said he will if it is safe to do so. He said at present the Oromo people are being killed by the government there.
34. The Presenting Officer made his submissions relying on the refusal letter of 31st July 2015. He submitted that the First-tier Tribunal's decision refers to adverse credibility and that is still the case. He submitted that the Appellant has been an unimpressive witness. He pointed out that when he gave evidence, he was able to remember dates when it was convenient: e.g. the dates of protests in Parliament Square and OLF meetings he has been to but when it was not convenient he could not remember dates; e.g. how long he was detained, when he left Ethiopia and when he left Libya. He submitted that none of the dates in the Appellant's chronology fit. At interview he said he was in Libya for five months and it took a week to get from Libya to the United Kingdom. He claimed asylum on 6th June 2015. He submitted that even if the Appellant was in Libya for eight months, this only takes him up to October 2014. He spent one and a half months in Sudan so, he must have left there in July or August 2014 but even taking this into account, there are nine months unaccounted for. He submitted that his account is not credible. He submitted that it is not credible that he was detained in Ethiopia and escaped at the end of 2013. He submitted that because of the inconsistencies and discrepancies in the timeline, his account of his detention is likely to have been fabricated. He told the Tribunal that he came to the United Kingdom one week after he left Libya but when he was asked for details of when things happened to him he was unable to answer.
35. The Presenting Officer submitted that he accepts that the Appellant might not know how many guards were at the detention centre but he submitted that the Appellant was vague and evasive when asked about these guards. Originally he said he only saw one guard but he has changed that to say that he saw different guards and different people took him from his cell to the interrogator. He submitted that the questions the Appellant was asked were straightforward but he was unable to answer them logically. In his screening interview he said he was detained for one month. After he saw his solicitor he changed this to seven months.
36. I was referred to the letter from Dr Berri. He submitted that everything in this letter is what the Appellant has told Dr Berri. Dr Berri has clearly accepted this at face value. Dr Berri made no mention of meeting him face-to-face.
37. The Presenting Officer referred to the Appellant stating that a poem and a cassette were found in his house but when he was asked why he had kept them in the house, when the police kept going there he could not give a reasonable answer. He submitted that the Appellant's evidence is that he is the son of a member of the OLF who was detained and died in detention. He submitted it does not make sense that the Appellant would keep poems and cassettes about the OLF in his house. His answer was that they were hidden but he submitted that this lacks credibility.
38. With regard to how the Appellant escaped from detention, he submitted that this lacks credibility. The Appellant now states that he was held for seven months in appalling conditions and yet he fled jumping over a fence and walked miles to his father's friend's house. He either walked all night and slept during the day or he slept during the night and walked during the day. He submitted that the Appellant was unable to explain how he knew what way he should be going and he submitted that none of this Appellant's account stands up to scrutiny. It is inherently incredible.
39. The Appellant's account is that he got to Europe through the benevolence of strangers and he submitted that this is not credible. He submitted that if I find his narrative is incredible his claim cannot succeed.
40. I was asked to consider the Appellant's sur place activities in the United Kingdom and he submitted that all of these happened after the refusal letter was issued in July 2015. He submitted that there is no evidence in the objective documents which indicate that the Ethiopian authorities have any sophisticated intelligence. He submitted that the Appellant's Facebook entries are self-serving and it is not clear why he has not used the security settings in his account. He submitted that anything written by the Appellant has not been translated and the Appellant relies on a video which has not been seen. He submitted that little weight can be given to the Appellant's activities in the United Kingdom for the Oromo people. He submitted that the Appellant has purely been bolstering his claim by attending these demonstrations and if he returns to Ethiopia today he will not be at risk. He submitted that this Appellant on return will not be doing anything to help the Oromo people, as this could put him in danger but even if he did, based on the background material, although it is clear that the Oromo people have problems in Ethiopia, there is no reason to find that he would be of any interest to the authorities there. He submitted that the Ethiopian government are not interested in the Appellant. They might be interested in high profile members of the Oromo but not low level attenders of demonstrations like the Appellant.
41. With regard to Dr Berri's letter he submitted that the Appellant's evidence is that he met Dr Berri but this is not mentioned in the letter. A telephone interview is mentioned, I was asked to give little weight to this letter particularly, in view of the fact that there is no mention of the Appellant being held in Ginir Detention Centre.
42. I was asked to dismiss the appeal.
43. Counsel for the Appellant submitted that the situation in Ethiopia for the Oromo people is desperate. I was referred to the Appellant's second bundle and the Human Rights Watch Report dated in June 2016. This makes it clear that there is a high level of persecution against the Oromo people and the police use lethal force against protestors. In one demonstration 400 people were killed, thousands were injured and tens of thousands were arrested. He submitted that hundreds forcibly disappeared and so clearly this Appellant will be at high risk of persecution if he returns to Ethiopia.
44. I was referred in particular to the Appellant's skeleton argument. I was asked to consider his previous arrest and detention. I was asked to find that his answers are detailed as to how he came to be involved with the OLF and his answers about the OLF itself are not vague. He submitted that his evidence is clear about the circumstances of his arrest and detention and he names individuals and is worried because he has done that.
45. Counsel submitted that the core of the Appellant's claim relating to his previous activities in Ethiopia must put him in danger on return. He was a supporter of the OLF and was falsely suspected of harbouring OLF members in the hotel he worked in. He submitted that the Appellant made financial contributions to the OLF and the person collecting these contributions had to come to the hotel and he submitted that that could be what led to the Appellant's arrest and detention.
46. With regard to the Appellant's description of his detention, Counsel submitted that this is consistent with the background evidence.
47. I was referred to the Human Rights Watch Report which refers to arbitrary arrests and detentions of Oromo people in Ethiopia. They are detained in police stations and then transferred to larger detention centres with no court hearing. He submitted that that is what the Appellant describes happened to him. He also refers to severe overcrowding in the detention centre and again he submitted that this is consistent with the objective evidence.
48. With regard to the Appellant's escape from detention he submitted that this is not implausible. This has to be considered against the background evidence and the Appellant states that the guard who came to take him for interrogation was overpowered and this enabled the Appellant and some others to escape.
49. He submitted that there is no discrepancy between the original evidence and the Appellant's asylum interview about the time spent at his father's friend's house or how he got there. He submitted that if I find the Appellant to be credible, he is an OLF supporter and has been detained and when the case of MB (Ethiopia) [2007] UKAIT 30 is considered this Appellant will be at risk on return.
50. Counsel then referred to the Appellant's activities in the United Kingdom and submitted that although these all took place after the refusal letter was issued, they happened very quickly after he arrived in the United Kingdom. He arrived in June 2015 and his first OLF meeting was in August 2015. He submitted that for the first two months the Appellant was moving around and was not settled anywhere. Counsel submitted that since then, the Appellant has been repeatedly engaged in meetings and demonstrations on behalf of the Oromo people and has an organisational role in the Oromo Society in Wales. He submitted that this Appellant has a strong commitment to the cause. He submitted that his sur place activity is not minimal. He was interviewed on the Oromo Media Network and he submitted that it is inconceivable that after this, the Ethiopian authorities are not monitoring the Appellant, as he and the Oromo Media Network are bringing the plight of the Oromos to the world. He submitted that the Appellant gave evidence about the video and this should be given weight.
51. With regard to the letter from Dr Berri he submitted that this is supportive of the Appellant's claim. Everything in the letter is consistent and I was asked to give it weight. Although his period of detention in Ginir is not mentioned, this could just be an oversight.
52. With regard to risk on return to Ethiopia now, as an elite or influential Oromo person, this Appellant must be at risk. Again I was referred to the skeleton argument and the background evidence. The background evidence refers to the government in Ethiopia executing Oromo people. The Appellant's evidence is that he will return to Ethiopia when it is safe for him to do so. At present he is secretary of the Oromo Society in Wales.
53. Counsel submitted that there is overwhelming evidence supporting the Appellant's account and overwhelming evidence referring to the oppressive and brutal treatment of the Oromos in Ethiopia in general.
54. With regard to the Appellant's dates and timeline, I was asked to find that after the interview was read back to him he made some changes to it and it is now clear that he was detained for seven months in Ethiopia and five months in Libya and was made to work as a labourer for three months in Libya. Counsel submitted that he accepts that there is a problem with the dates but the Appellant is not a highly educated man and it is clear from his evidence that dates, times and numbers are difficult for him. He stated that the police went to his house a hundred times but that clearly is not the case. I was asked to give weight to the evidence in the Appellant's favour and find that his story of his detention is consistent with the background evidence, his sur place activities are detailed and he has a high profile position in Wales in the Oromo Society. He submitted that the background evidence makes it clear that there is a risk to influential Oromos in Ethiopia. I was asked to allow the appeal.
55. Counsel referred me to the Human Rights Watch Report, which refers to violations by the security forces in Ethiopia against the Oromo people, arbitrary arrests and detentions and arrests of influential Oromo community leaders. Torture and ill-treatment is referred to and I was asked to give particular weight to the COI Report.
56. Counsel submitted that the said case of MB predates the Appellant's activities in the United Kingdom on behalf of the Oromo people. He submitted that this appeal depends on different evidence to that considered in the said case of MB which was promulgated in 2007. I was asked to find that the Appellant's evidence about the subsequent 2014 and 2015/16 protests and the Ethiopian authorities' response to those protests, all have to be given weight and the case of MB is therefore out of date.
57. I was asked to allow the appeal.
Decision and Reasons
58. The burden of proof is on the Appellant and the standard of proof is as previously narrated.
59. I have considered all of the evidence on file, the subjective and objective evidence some of which may not be specifically referred to herein, the oral evidence given at the hearing and the submissions of both parties.
60. This is a hearing on all issues. The Respondent states that the Appellant's account is lacking in credibility. The Respondent accepts that the Appellant is a national of Ethiopia of Oromo ethnicity. The Appellant's evidence is that his father was in the OLF and was detained and died in detention after seven years. He states that his father died in 2012 and in 2012 the authorities went to his house on around a hundred occasions. The Appellant now admits that this was just an approximate figure. His evidence now is that they came now and then. His evidence about this is exaggerated and extremely vague. The Appellant states that he wants to help the Oromo people and that is why he joined the OLF and he was interested in the OLF long before he joined it in 2013. He explained how difficult it is to join the OLF as it is a banned society. It is difficult to understand why the OLF would want the Appellant to join them, if his home was under constant surveillance by the authorities. At the Appellant's interview it was found that he knew little about the OLF. In the refusal letter it is stated that the Appellant has failed to continue his support of the OLF since leaving Ethiopia and that this damages this aspect of his claim. After he received the refusal letter, he started going to demonstrations and meetings of the Oromo Society and is now secretary of the Oromo Society in Wales. I find it significant that this happened only after he received the refusal letter. The Appellant is trying to bolster his claim.
61. The Presenting Officer went through his evidence about the date when he left Ethiopia and arrived in the United Kingdom and the periods he states he spent in different countries on his way to the United Kingdom. It is clear that his timeline is totally wrong. This goes against his credibility. In his screening interview he stated that he was detained in Ethiopia for one month but he then changed this to seven months. His evidence is inconsistent throughout. He appears to be unable to reconcile dates but this seems strange as he can give exact dates of when he went to demonstrations and meetings in the United Kingdom.
62. The Appellant has produced a letter by Dr Berri, chairman of the Oromo Society in the United Kingdom but I find that I can give this letter little weight. Dr Berri states that he is writing this letter on the Appellant's request, which he received in November 2015. There is no mention in this letter of the Appellant meeting Dr Berri, although the Appellant states that he did meet him. Dr Berri makes no mention of the Appellant being detained in Girin. It is also clear that Dr Berri was not in Ethiopia when the Appellant was there and this letter is therefore based on what the Appellant told Dr Berri happened to him in Ethiopia. I accept that the Appellant is the secretary for the Oromo community in Wales. The Appellant states that there are around 45 members but the fact that he has been to demonstrations and meetings in London do not really help this Appellant's claim. There is no evidence that the authorities in Ethiopia are aware of this. The Appellant states that he gave an interview on behalf of the Oromo people which lasted about seven minutes but there is nothing to suggest that the Ethiopian government is aware of this. There are also photographs of the Appellant at demonstrations but he is not named and neither are the people with him and there is nothing before me to indicate that the Ethiopian authorities would be aware of him. There is nothing in the background evidence which would lead me to believe that the Ethiopian authorities have high technology which would bring this Appellant to their attention.
63. Based on the Appellant's evidence, this Appellant is a low level member of the Oromo Society in Wales and I do not believe that on return he would be at any risk from the authorities in Ethiopia.
64. The background evidence refers to the Oromo people being harassed by the government in Ethiopia but as a low level Oromo I do not find that on return this Appellant will be singled out or targeted.
65. His evidence of his detention and how he was treated in Ethiopia is consistent with the background evidence but, I find that for me to break away from the decision in the said case of MB I require more than this Appellant has provided. The expert report I was expecting for this hearing has not been provided. I can give little weight to Dr Berri's letter and I found the Appellant's evidence to be vague and inconsistent.
66. Although at interview the Appellant had some knowledge of the OLF, he also got confused about where OLF offices are and who the allies of the OLF are.
67. Section 8 of the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc.) Act 2004 applies. This Appellant travelled through Italy and France on his way to the United Kingdom but did not claim asylum in these safe countries. This goes against his credibility.
68. I have considered the said case of MB (Ethiopia) which states that OLF members face a real risk on return but this is if they have been previously arrested or detained or have a significant history and are known to the authorities. I do not believe the Appellant's account of being arrested and detained and therefore I find that this does not apply to him. This Appellant is an extremely low level member of the Oromo community and as such I do not find that on return the authorities will be interested in him. I have taken into account the objective evidence supplied dated after the decision in the said case of MB.
69. There is no Home Office policy for Oromo people returning to Ethiopia. When the Appellant was asked what his activities would be on return he said that if he was safe in Ethiopia he would continue to do work for the Oromo people. I believe that he will not be at real risk on return. I do not believe that he will be doing anything of significance on behalf of the Oromo people. I do not believe that he was doing this in the past. His whole story lacks credibility.
70. The inconsistencies in his evidence are significant. It is not clear whether on his escape (which I do not believe) he went to his father's friend during the day and slept at night or slept during the day and went to his father's friend's at night. It is not credible that the poem and cassette he refers to would be in his house, even if they were hidden if the police were very regular visitors there. Neither do I find it credible that strangers in Libya funded his journey to the UK. He has been unable to give a clear consistent account and because of this, I find that his account is not true.
71. This Appellant's appeal depends on his credibility. This Appellant was not credible. I am giving little weight to his sur place activities in the United Kingdom. I do not find that this Appellant is an instigator of protests or is in a position of influence in the OLF or is responsible for mobilising others to protest. I have taken into account the evidence about the subsequent 2014 and 2015/16 protests but I am following the said case of MB and I am dismissing his appeal on all issues.

Notice of Decision
I dismiss the asylum appeal.
I dismiss the Appellant's appeal on the humanitarian protection issue.
I dismiss the Appellant's appeal under the Immigration Rules.
I dismiss the Appellant's human rights appeal.
Anonymity has been directed:

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

Deputy Upper Tribunal Judge I A M Murray