Tribunal decisions

The decision

The Upper Tribunal
(Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: PA/01760/2015

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Heard at Manchester
Decision & Reasons Promulgated
On 3rd April 2017
On 20th April 2017

Before

DEPUTY JUDGE OF THE UPPER TRIBUNAL FARRELLY

Between

Mr. B.B.
(ANONYMITY DIRECTION MADE)
Appellant
And

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent

Representation:

For the Appellant: Immigration Advice Service (Manchester).
For the Respondent: Mrs. Aboni, Home Office Presenting Officer.

DECISION AND REASONS

Introduction

1. The appellant made a claim to protection on 23 June 2015. He said he was a national of Ethiopia, born in January 1996 and of Oromo ethnicity. He claimed to have left his home country in May. He said he feared the authorities in his home country.

2. He said he had been supporting the Oromo Liberation Front and was arrested in October 2013. After being detained for six weeks he was released. In April 2014 he took part in a demonstration and was told afterwards that the police had been at his home looking for him. Shortly after this he left his home country.

3. His claim was refused on 23 September 2015. His nationality and ethnicity were accepted. However his claimed involvement with the Oromo Liberation Front was not. His account of his activities was considered to be vague. It was noted in the three months he had been in United Kingdom he had not been involved with the Oromo liberation front here.

The First tier Tribunal

4. His appeal was heard by First-tier Judge Lawrence at Manchester on 28 June 2016 and was dismissed. The decision records that he attended for a substantive interview with the respondent on 3 September 2015. At paragraph 9 of the decision the judge referred to the appellant giving different accounts of when he was first involved with the Oromo Liberation Front. He initially said he began supporting them in December 2012 and attended his first meeting two months later. Later in the interview he said he his first meeting was in April 2013. In his witness statement he said he started supporting the party in February 2013. This apparent inconsistency was raised in cross-examination. The appellant’s explanation was that he meant to say that in December 2012 he was giving moral support but he did not start supporting until February 2013 when he began contributing money. The judge attached significance to these apparent inconsistencies in the chronology. The judge rejected his claim of being a member of the Oromo Liberation Front and concluded he was not of interest to the authorities.

The Upper Tribunal.

5. Permission to appeal was sought on the basis the bulk of the decision dealt with the chronology and all the evidence presented was not adequately considered. Reference was made to a dismissive treatment of the appellant’s account. It was contended the judge unduly focused on the chronology instead of looking at the claim in its entirety.

6. Permission to appeal was granted on the basis there was a lack of reasoning by the judge, with the focus being upon the asylum interview without balancing the other evidence.

7. The respondent submitted a rule 24 response opposing the appeal and submitting that the challenge amounted to a disagreement with the findings. These were open to the judge on the evidence and it was a matter for the judge to decide what weight to attach to discrepancies in the chronology.

8. At hearing the appellant’s representative pointed out that on the basis the appellant became involved with the Oromo Liberation Front in December 2012, he was only approaching his 17th birthday. It was argued that the fact he was a minor was something the judge should have born in mind in assessing this evidence.

9. I was referred to paragraph 19 of the decision where the judge relays the appellant's claim of having been arrested; tortured; released and subsequently attending a demonstration. The judge stated:

. … I do not accept that the appellant was arrested at any meeting, detained, tortured and released after months. I have rejected the core of his claim, namely he was ever a member of OLF.

10. It was argued that this illustrated the judge simply dismissing the account out of hand without adequately assessing the evidence. I was also referred to a letter from his representatives, AS, dated 29 September 2015 which commented on questions asked at the interview with a view to clarification. There was also an attempt by the appellant at question 256 of his interview to explain the chronology. It was pointed out there is no reference to these representations in the decision.

11. Mrs. Aboni accepted that the judge failed to address the amendments and explanation for the apparent inconsistencies. She was in agreement that the failure to do so arguably amounted to an error of law.

12. Having considered the points made by the parties my conclusion is that the decision of First-tier Judge Laurence does materially err in law. The decision attaches a significant weight to the chronology in rejecting the claim. It does not address the explanations given or show allowance was made for the appellant's age at the time of the claimed occurrence. The judge appears to have formed a view as to credibility primarily from the interview .The decision appears dismissive of the appellant's assertions and fails to evaluate the explanations given. Paragraph 17 of the decision would indicate only a cursory view of the explanations given in the appellant’s statement about when he joined. Both parties are in agreement that the decision should be remitted to the First-tier tribunal for a rehearing.

Decision

The decision of First-tier Judge Laurence dismissing the appellant's appeal materially errs in law and cannot stand. The appeal is remitted for a complete rehearing in the First-tier Tribunal.

Deputy Judge Farrelly

17th April 2017

Directions.

1. The appeal is remitted to the First-tier Tribunal for a de novo hearing before any judge except First-tier judge Laurence.
2. The parties are to date an exchange bundles no later than one week before the hearing.
3. An interpreter fluent in Ethiopian Oromo will be required to the hearing.

Deputy Judge Farrelly

17th April 2017