PA/01422/2016

  • Case title:  
  • Appellant name:
  • Status of case: Unreported
  • Hearing date:
  • Promulgation date:
  • Publication date:
  • Last updated on:
  • Country:
  • Judges:

The decision



Upper Tribunal
(Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: pA/01422/2016

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Heard at Bradford
Decision & Reasons Promulgated
On 24 April 2017
On 25 April 2017



Before

DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE SAFFER

Between

MOHAMED ABDULLAHI SAID
(NO ANONYMITY ORDER MADE)
Appellant
and

SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent

Representation:
For the Appellant: Mr Brown of Counsel
For the Respondent: Mr Diwyncz a Home Office Presenting Officer

DECISION AND REASONS

Background

1. The Respondent refused the application for asylum or ancillary protection on 1 February 2016. The appeal against this was dismissed by First-tier Tribunal Judge Cox (“the Judge”) following a hearing on 11 October 2016.

The grant of permission

2. Upper Tribunal Judge King granted permission to appeal (5 January 2017) on the basis that it is arguable that the finding that the Appellant was a member of the Sheikhal clan did not necessarily mean he was a member of the Sheikhal Logobe who had protection of the Hawiye. Accordingly, the finding that the Appellant had the protection of the Hawiye in Mogadishu and could therefore internally relocate there was unsafe.

Respondent’s position

3. It was submitted in the rule 24 notice (18 January 2017) that clan membership is not as significant as it once was in Mogadishu and in any event the Appellant was found to have the support of a majority clan.

Discussion

4. I was asked by Mr Brown to check the record of proceedings to see what the Appellant said about his clan membership. I did. He confirmed both in evidence in chief and cross examination that he was from the Sheikhal Logobe sub clan of the Sheikhal clan. In those circumstances the Judge was plainly entitled to rely on that.

5. He was also entitled to note at [47] that “in Mogadishu the Sheikhal Logobe appear to have secured Hawiye patronage” as found in AM and AM (Armed conflict: risk categories) Somalia CG [2008] UKAIT 00091 at [167].

6. He was therefore entitled to conclude that it was not reasonably likely that the Appellant would have to go to one of the IDP camps [49], and given the fact that Al-Shabbab had been driven from Mogadishu [42], it would be reasonable and not unduly harsh to expect the Appellant to go to Mogadishu.

7. I am not therefore satisfied that a material error of law occurred.

Decision:

The making of the decision of the First-tier Tribunal did not involve the making of an error on a point of law.

I do not set aside the decision.



Deputy Upper Tribunal Judge Saffer
24 April 2017