Tribunal decisions

The decision

Upper Tribunal
(Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: PA/02670/2015

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Heard at Liverpool
Decisions & Reasons Promulgated
On December 13, 2016
On December 15, 2016

Before

DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE ALIS

Between

MR NASER SHOBREM JABER
(NO ANONYMITY DIRECTION MADE)
Appellant
and

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent

Representation:
Appellant Mr Hussain (Legal Representative)
Respondent Mr Harrison (Senior Home Office Presenting Officer)

DECISION AND REASONS

1. I do not make an anonymity order under rule 14 of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008 (SI 2008/2698 as amended).

2. The appellant is a national of Kuwait. On July 26, 2015 the appellant claimed to have entered the United Kingdom and claimed asylum. The respondent refused his application on November 5, 2015 under paragraphs 336 and 339M./339F HC 395.

3. The appellant appealed that decision on November 13, 2015 under Section 82(1) of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 and his appeal came before Judge of the First-tier Tribunal Herwald (hereinafter referred to as "the Judge" on July 7, 2016. In a decision promulgated on July 28, 2016 he refused his appeal on asylum grounds and human rights grounds.

4. The appellant appealed the Judge's decision on August 15, 2016 and permission to appeal was granted by Judge of the First-tier Tribunal Baker on September 1, 2016. He found that it was arguable that his findings in paragraphs 13(e) and 13(g) may have amounted to an error in law.

5. The respondent filed a Rule 24 response dated September 28, 2016 arguing there was no error and the findings were open to the Judge.

6. The matter came before me on the above date and on that occasion I heard submissions from both representatives.

SUBMISSIONS

7. Mr Hussain adopted the grounds of appeal and submitted the Judge erred by failing to take into account that the appellant's brother-in-law was his cousin and an undocumented Bidoon and it was reasonably likely that the appellant would also be one. The Judge should have addressed this issue in his decision. The second ground argued was that the Judge attached too much weight to the fact the appellant spoke some English in interview. The Judge failed to have regard he may have learnt some English after arriving in the United Kingdom.

8. Mr Harrison relied on the Rule 24 response and submitted the Judge made findings that were open to him.

DISCUSSION AND FINDINGS

9. The Judge dealt with an undocumented Bidoon claim. He rejected the respondent's claim that the appellant was not related to the person he said was his sister. The Judge accepted that evidence but having done so he then proceeded to give reasons why he rejected the appellant's claim to be an undocumented Bidoon.

10. The Judge's decision must be read together. The burden of proof lies with the appellant and the Judge found there was no objective evidence that supported his claim that just because one family member was an undocumented that meant the remainder of the family was.

11. The Judge's paragraph [13] of his decision set out his approach to the appellant's claim. At paragraph [13(d)] the Judge suggested reasons why the appellant claimed to be undocumented and in paragraph [13(e)] the Judge discussed the appellant's relationships but the Judge also set out concerns he had about the appellant's claim to be an undocumented Bidoon.

12. Nothing presented today by Mr Hussain persuades me that the Judge made findings that were perverse or wrong in law. At paragraph [13(f) and (g)] the Judge then set out his concerns over the appellant's ability to speak English despite his claim to be uneducated and unable to speak any other language other than Arabic. The Judge made adverse findings and those findings were again open to the Judge.

13. I am satisfied that Mr Hussain's arguments amount to mere disagreements with the Judge's decision. The Judge made those findings having considered all the evidence. Nothing advanced by Mr Hussain persuaded me that the Judge erred.

DECISION

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

Signed: Dated:

Deputy Upper Tribunal Judge Alis

FEE AWARD
TO THE RESPONDENT

I make no fee award as I have dismissed the appeal.

Signed: Dated:

Deputy Upper Tribunal Judge Alis