Tribunal decisions

The decision

Upper Tribunal
(Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: PA/01538/2015

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Heard at Field House
Decision & Reasons Promulgated
On 15 September 2016
On 19 October 2016

Before

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE ALLEN

Between

Z L
(anonymity direction MADE)
Appellant

and

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent

Representation:

For the Appellant: Mr W Tan of West 12 Solicitors
For the Respondent: Mr K Norton, Senior Home Office Presenting Officer

DECISION AND REASONS

1. The appellant is a national of China. He appealed to a Judge of the First-tier Tribunal against the respondent's decision of 24 September 2015 refusing his asylum claim.

2. The judge did not accept that the appellant had a well-founded fear on return to China on account of his activities while in China. Specifically he found at paragraph 34 of his decision that the appellant's claim was fabricated with regard to the claim that he had come to the adverse attention of the authorities in China as a consequence of being involved with pro-Tibetan separatists and helping them to organise leaflets, banners and accommodation prior to a demonstration in China during 2011. It was also not accepted that he had helped this group financially. It was not accepted that the arrest warrant produced was reliable. All these adverse findings were challenged, but permission was refused in relation to those.

3. The appellant however was granted permission to appeal in relation to risk in connection with his sur place activities. He claimed that he is involved with a Tibetan group in the United Kingdom and had joined the Tibet Society. He had taken part in a Tibetan demonstration in the United Kingdom during March 2016. The judge accepted this evidence and also accepted evidence of Mr Frederick Hyde-Chambers who had been informed by the appellant of his involvement in Tibetan matters in China. Mr Hyde-Chambers is, among things, Chairman of the Tibet Society of the UK. He believed that individuals in the appellant's situation face persecution if returned to China.

4. The judge noted the country guidance of SP [2007] UKIAT 00021 where it was concluded that removal to the People's Republic of China of Tibetans who left China illegally on the Tibet Nepal route would give rise to a real risk of persecution. The judge noted that the appellant was not however Tibetan but was Han Chinese, he had not left China illegally and he had a valid passport. The judge had noted that the appellant had gone to the Chinese Embassy in London to renew his passport and did this after the so-called arrest warrant had been issued and that would form part of the judge's reasons for not accepting the claim to be at risk on account of activities while in China. The judge accepted that the appellant sympathised with the Tibetan cause but found that he had not shown that his limited involvement in the United Kingdom with this cause had brought him to the attention of the Chinese authorities, nor had it been shown by him that it was reasonably likely to be the case in the future. The judge commented that his support in the United Kingdom was low level and concluded the claim could not succeed.

5. Permission to appeal was granted on the basis that the Home Office evidence had been before the judge which stated "persons who support, or are perceived to support, independence for Tibet are at risk of similar ill-treatment by the authorities".

6. In his submissions Mr Tan drew on the points made in his skeleton argument in relation to this. He argued that the judge's acceptance of the evidence as regards the sur place activities of the appellant and the evidence of Mr Hyde-Chambers meant that in light of the country information from the Home Office concerning risk on return set out above the appeal should be allowed. If the Tribunal did not agree it could only send the matter back for a fresh hearing if there was a conflict as to what the judge had accepted.

7. Mr Norton agreed that the matter essentially turned on the judge's findings at paragraphs 35 and 36 of his decision. The appellant had left China lawfully, and had renewed his passport while in the United Kingdom. He had had only limited involvement with the Tibetan cause while in the United Kingdom, and there was no adverse interest in him. The question of his activities on return to China was not a matter that had been argued. There was no credible history of pro-Tibetan activities in China, in fact there were adverse findings in that regard, at paragraph 34 of the judge's decision. There was no doubt about Mr Hyde-Chambers evidence but he was clearly not an independent source and merely recorded his acknowledgment of the appellant's involvement in certain activities.

8. By way of reply Mr Tan argued that Mr Hyde-Chambers had given evidence in person and the judge had accepted his evidence and this was unqualified and he had not said that Mr Hyde-Chambers was not independent. It was not possible to go behind this. The case was not dissimilar to SP and Others where all the appellants were failed asylum seekers and as Tibetans faced risk on return. The expert knowledge of Mr Hyde-Chambers could be relied on to support risk on return and that was a conclusion the judge had not rebutted.

9. I reserved my determination.

10. I do not read the judge's acceptance of Mr Hyde-Chambers' evidence or that evidence itself as showing that the appellant would be at risk purely on the basis of his sur place activities. Mr Hyde-Chambers accepted what the appellant said about his activities while in China and that clearly formed part of his view as to risk on return.

11. The fact that the appellant has been involved in pro-Tibetan activities and in particular attending a demonstration, does not in my view show that he faces a real risk on return. It was clearly open to the judge to conclude that the appellant had not shown that his limited involvement in the United Kingdom with the pro-Tibetan cause had brought him to the attention of the Chinese authorities. In this regard it was clearly relevant that he had been confident enough to go to the Chinese Embassy in London to renew his passport and was able to renew it. As Mr Norton pointed out when I raised the HJ (Iran) issue with him, the question of the appellant's activities on return to China is not a matter that has been argued. It did not form part of the appellant's evidence that he would wish to express his views about Tibet on return to China. As a consequence, I consider that it was fully open to the judge to find that he did not face a real risk on return to China, bearing in mind the Home Office Country Report of 23 October 2015 at paragraph 2.3.1, and bearing in mind there is no indication that his activities had brought him to the attention of the Chinese authorities and he was able to renew his passport in London. As noted above, the question of how he would act on return to China did not form part of his evidence and the judge cannot be said to have erred in not speculating about that issue.

12. For the reasons set out above, I conclude that the judge did not err in law in his decision, and his decision dismissing the appellant's appeal is accordingly maintained.

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

Upper Tribunal Judge Allen 19 October 2016