Tribunal decisions

The decision

Upper Tribunal
(Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: PA/02008/2015

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Heard at City Centre Tower, Birmingham
Decision & Reasons Promulgated
On 16th November 2016
On 6th December 2016

Before

DEPUTY upper tribunal JUDGE RENTON

Between

A M
(ANONYMITY DIRECTION MADE)
Appellant

and

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT

Respondent

Representation:

For the Appellant: Mr S Woodhouse of Sultan Lloyd Solicitors
For the Respondent: Mrs H Aboni, Home Office Presenting Officer

DECISION AND REASONS

Introduction
1. The Appellant is a male citizen of Iran born on 25th October 1993. He entered the UK illegally on 18th June 2015 and applied for asylum the following day. That application was refused for the reasons given in the Respondent's letter of 12th October 2015. The Appellant appealed, and his appeal was heard by Judge of the First-tier Tribunal Graham (the Judge) sitting at Birmingham on 27th June 2016. She decided to dismiss the appeal on asylum, humanitarian protection, and human rights grounds for the reasons given in her Decision dated 28th June 2016. The Appellant sought leave to appeal that decision, and on 8th August 2016 such permission was granted.
Error of Law
2. I must first decide if the decision of the Judge contained an error on a point of law so that it should be set aside.
3. The Judge dismissed the appeal because she found the Appellant to be lacking in credibility and did not believe his account of events in Iran. The Judge identified a number of inconsistencies in the Appellant's evidence and took account of the fact that on his arrival the Appellant had not been truthful about his journey to the UK. The Judge also found the Appellant's credibility damaged by operation of Section 8 of the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc.) Act 2004. The Appellant also relied upon his sur place activities in the UK with the KDPI. The Judge decided that the Appellant had embellished this part of his evidence, and that he was not at risk on return to Iran particularly as the messages on his Facebook page were not overtly political.
4. At the hearing, Mr Woodhouse referred to the grounds of application and to his Skeleton Argument and argued that the Judge had materially erred in law in coming to these conclusions. The Judge had failed to deal sufficiently with the issue of the Facebook entries. The Judge had not taken into account or even referred to the decision in AB and Others (internet activity - state of evidence) Iran [2015] UKUT 0257 (IAC). The posts on the Appellant's Facebook page were very political. These would be investigated by the Iranian authorities on the Appellant's return to Iran as a consequence of the "pinch point" created by the Appellant's illegal departure.
5. In response, Mrs Aboni referred to her Rule 24 response and argued that there were no such errors of law. The Judge had made findings of fact open to her on the evidence before her and for which she had given full reasons. At paragraph 37 of the Decision the Judge had explained why she attached no weight to the arrest warrant and court summons produced by the Appellant. The Appellant had no political profile and an illegal departure would not put him at risk on return as decided in SSH and HR (illegal exit, failed asylum seeker) Iran CG [2016] UKUT 00308 following SB (risk on return - illegal exit) Iran CG [2009] UKAIT 00053.
6. I find no material error of law in the decision of the Judge which therefore I do not set aside. The Judge decided that the Appellant had not been engaged in any political activities in Iran which might put him at risk on return. As Mrs Aboni argued, this was a conclusion open to the Judge from the evidence before her and which she fully explained. It cannot therefore be said that the Judge's assessment of the Appellant's sur place activities was tainted in any way by a wrong decision about the Appellant's activities in Iran.
7. As regards the Appellant's sur place activities, I find that the Judge was correct to conclude that there were no "pinch points" which might arouse suspicion on the Appellant's return. The fact that he had left Iran illegally, if that was the case, would not suffice as established in jurisprudence. Even if there was such suspicion, I agree with the Judge's assessment of the evidence before her that the Appellant's Facebook pages were not overtly political. The additional pages supplied to me at the hearing, with my consent, are not translated and take the matter no further.
8. For these reasons I find no material error of law in the decision of the Judge.

Notice of 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 that decision.

The appeal to the Upper Tribunal is dismissed.

Anonymity

The First-tier Tribunal made an order for anonymity which I continue for the reasons given by the First-tier Tribunal.

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 his 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 Renton 6th December 2016