Tribunal decisions

The decision

Upper Tribunal
(Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: PA/01665/2015

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Heard at Manchester
Decision & Reasons Promulgated
On 4th October 2016
On 5th October 2016

Before

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE MARTIN

Between

JABER [H]
(ANONYMITY DIRECTION NOT MADE)
Appellant

and

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent

Representation:

For the Appellant: Mr J Lynch (instructed by A2 Solicitors)
For the Respondent: Mrs R Pettersen (Senior Home Office Presenting Officer)

DECISION AND REASONS

1. This is an appeal to the Upper Tribunal, with permission, by the Appellant in relation to a Decision and Reasons of the First-tier Tribunal (Judge Herwald) promulgated on 30th June 2016 by which he dismissed the Appellant's appeal against the Secretary of State's decision to refuse his protection claim.

2. The Appellant claimed to be at risk because he is an undocumented Bidoon from Kuwait.

3. The Judge, in a detailed and thorough consideration of the Appellant's claim made numerous adverse credibility findings. At paragraph 13 (d) he noted that the Appellant had embarked on a series of misleading answers and downright lies, when he was interviewed. He found him to be wholly without credibility, having told numerous untruths. The Appellant has a sister who had been recognised by the Secretary of State as an undocumented Bidoon from Kuwait. However, she neither provided evidence to support the Appellant nor attended court. Furthermore, her case had not been tested and in any event her Kuwaiti nationality did not prevent the Appellant from having acquired Iraqi nationality.

4. The Judge made a positive finding that the Appellant was in fact of Iraqi nationality, in no small part because of his having travelled to Iraq, something else which he had earlier denied, and applying at the US embassy there for a visa using an Iraqi passport.

5. The grant of permission to appeal did not include a grant in relation to the adverse findings with regard to his being an undocumented Bidoon; rather was limited to the fact that the Judge's Decision and Reasons was silent as to whether the Appellant could return in safety to Iraq. The judge granting permission was mistaken. The Decision and Reasons was not silent on that matter. The Judge noted at paragraph 12(a) of the Decision and Reasons that there was no argument before him but that return to Iraq is feasible following the country guidance case and updated information on that country. He went on to say at paragraph 17 that the Appellant had not established any subjectively genuine or objectively well founded fear of persecution by Iraq, its agents or any other person.

6. Mr Lynch, on the Appellant's behalf suggested that the Appellant was given no opportunity before the First-tier Tribunal to deal with the situation in Iraq. That however was not the case. The Appellant was on notice that the issue was his nationality as the Secretary of State made clear in the Letter of Refusal. He knew that the Secretary of State asserted him to be an Iraqi national. No issue was raised before the First-tier Tribunal Judge of any risk on return to Iraq and therefore it was not an error of law for the Judge to say so.

7. Mr Lynch then sought to reopen the grounds in relation to the Judge's adverse credibility findings in relation to which permission had not been granted. However, it is clear from reading the Decision and Reasons as a whole that it is fully and thoroughly reasoned. The Appellant had been found out telling quite deliberate untruths and the fact that he had been fingerprinted by the US authorities in Iraq seeking a visa was very strong evidence of both his presence there at the time and his possession of an Iraqi passport. I could discern no arguable error of law in his findings in relation to the Appellant's alleged Kuwaiti nationality.

8. The judge did not make an error of law in his Decision and Reasons, material or otherwise and it shall stand.

9. The Appellant's appeal to the Upper Tribunal is dismissed.

10. There was no application for an anonymity direction and I see no justification for making one.

Signed Date 4th October 2016

Upper Tribunal Judge Martin