Tribunal decisions

The decision

IAC-FH-NL-V1

Upper Tribunal
(Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: PA/02701/2016

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Heard at Field House
Decision & Reasons Promulgated
On 15 December 2016
On 19 January 2017

Before

DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE LATTER

Between

Mutaz [A]
(ANONYMITY DIRECTION not made)
Appellant
and

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent

Representation:
For the Appellant: Mr J Butterworth, Counsel instructed by Bedfords Solicitors
For the Respondent: Ms A Brocklesby-Weller, Home Office Presenting Officer

DECISION AND REASONS

1. This is an appeal by the appellant against a decision of the First-tier Tribunal dismissing his appeal against the respondent's decision made on 9 March 2016 refusing his application for asylum.

Background
2. The background to this appeal can briefly be summarised as follows. The appellant is of Palestinian origin but has been lawfully and habitually resident in Jordan. A number of his family members have been accepted as refugees and the appellant travels on a Jordanian temporary passport. He entered the UK as a visitor on 12 September 2015 and claimed asylum on 9 October 2015.
3. His claim was based on his involvement with his father's business selling food to agents who would transport it to refugee camps. Some time in 2011 his father entered into a business partnership with four other businessmen who were all from the same influential and powerful tribe. In respect of one of the transactions the agent in charge of selling the goods to the refugee camps fled to Egypt with the proceeds of the sale. When the appellant's father told his business partners about the agent, they then started to put pressure on him to make good their losses.
4. The appellant's father sought to dispose of land which he held in order to raise funds but this move was blocked by the brother of one of those demanding payment, who seized the property and used his position as an MP to frustrate lawful recourse by the appellant and his father. Subsequently, there were a number of incidents, firstly on 17 August 2014 when the appellant's family home was broken into and money, documents and other property was taken or destroyed. The police were informed but filed the report as an offence by unknown persons.
5. Later the same week, on 21 August 2014 the appellant was driving along the highway towards Amman. A group of men from the Abu Zaid tribe followed the appellant for some 30 minutes and then rammed his car from behind. He lost control of his vehicle and collided with the car ahead before leaving the road. The appellant was taken to hospital and the accident was filed as one caused by driver error on the appellant's part.
6. On 1 September 2014 a group of seven people attacked the appellant's home by night. They were all from the Al-Aramta tribe. The appellant and his elder brother were not there at the time. His father and grandfather were both assaulted. His grandfather was taken to hospital where they encountered the attackers who had harmed themselves and gone to hospital to fabricate a complaint against the appellant's family. There was later an attempt at mediation through a tribal elder but the agreement broke down.
7. On 5 April 2015 the appellant was leaving his home when he was set upon by three men and severely assaulted, such that he was hospitalised for three nights. After this incident he moved to the home of an uncle outside Amman hoping to be safe from further attack. On 17 June 2015 a number of men attacked the appellant's home in Amman causing damage with an axe to parts of the house and to the appellant's van. They set fire to the house, causing damage.
8. The appellant's grandfather suffered during the attack and was taken to hospital where he died on 24 June 2015. There were further incidents on 9 July 2015 where people broke into the warehouse of the appellant and his father, stealing cigarettes. Finally, on 28 August 2015 the appellant was kidnapped, taken to a remote area where he was beaten and threatened and told that this was his last opportunity to pay the outstanding sums and avoid death. He was then allowed to leave. It was decided that he should leave Jordan forthwith for his own safety and he did so on 12 September 2015 when he travelled to the UK.
The Hearing before the First-tier Tribunal
9. The respondent refused the appellant's application and he appealed to the First-tier Tribunal. Having reviewed the evidence the judge found that the appellant's credibility was so seriously impaired on points material to the central core of his claim that no reliance could be placed on it unless reliably supported. He found that the appellant had failed to prove even to the lower standard the central core of his account, describing his evidence as a mendacious construction comprising some events that might have occurred such as a personal car accident, petty damage to his van and the death of his grandfather which had been transparently embellished. He presented these together with other wholly imagined events such as his alleged kidnapping and the alleged self-harming of malicious persecutors in order to found a false claim against him. The appeal was dismissed on all grounds.
The Grounds and Submissions
10. The grounds seek to challenge the judge's findings raising five issues. The first ground deals with the evidence relating to the death of the appellant's grandfather. At [37] the judge found it inconsistent that the certificate made no mention of the subsequent death of his grandfather which had occurred well before the date of the issue of certificate. The grounds argue that this misunderstands the appellant's evidence which was to the effect that the attack was on 17 June 2015 when the matter was reported to the police, his grandfather died on 24 June 2015 and the report was issued on 15 July 2015. There was no evidence to suggest that the appellant had requested that the report be updated. If the report related to events reported on 17 June 2015, it could not reasonably be expected that it would mention the death of the grandfather or any trauma he had suffered when that had not been reported.
11. The second ground argues that the judge made a mistake of fact about the photographs when he commented at [35] that in the photographs submitted of the house no damage was visible and in particular no depiction of fire damage. However, the appellant had not suggested that the photographs did show such damage and the judge had therefore erred by commenting on the lack of damage shown.
12. The third ground seeks to challenge the judge's reliance on plausibility without having taken proper account of the background evidence and in particular at [40] when he described the evidence of the appellant being abducted but then released which on its face was so unlikely as to be lacking in credibility. The judge commented that despite on the appellant's account repeated attempts at harm and violent recovery they did not seek to ransom him for payment or otherwise to extort payment but rather showed unexpected clemency, giving him a further two months to raise the money.
13. The fourth ground argues that the judge erred on the issue of the land owned by the appellant's mother. Documentary evidence showed that it was owned jointly with other persons and the judge found that it was incredible that the very fact that the appellant's home was owned in part by members of the Abu Zaid clan tended to militate against any allegation of an attack by the same clan. However the land deed did not state that the home was jointly owned, rather that the plot of land was jointly owned and on this basis the Abu Zaid clan did not attack a home which they jointly owned but the home of another person located on a plot of land they jointly owned.
14. The fifth ground argues that the judge erred in suggesting that the intervention of a tribal leader following the 1 September 2014 incident detracted from the claim that the appellant's persecutors had tribal backing but this is contrary to the country evidence relied on which showed that tribal leaders regularly mediated between other tribes. The judge had failed to take account of the appellant's evidence that the tribes were unable to harm them in Jarash as the local tribe members there prevented it. In summary, Mr Butterworth submitted that the judge's findings on credibility were unsafe in the light of these various factors.
15. Ms Brocklesby-Weller submitted that whilst the judge had identified a large number of inconsistencies, the factors set out in the grounds did raise concerns about the judge's findings and in particular the fact that the judge attached weight to the fact that the photographs produced of the house did not show any visible damage and the report relating to the grandfather's death contained no suggestion of the sudden onset of a fatal condition in recent traumatic circumstances of violence. She did not seek to make any further submissions.
16. In reply Mr Butterworth said that the failure to attack all the findings did not mean that they were conceded and repeated his submission that there were concerns about the way the judge had relied unduly on issues of plausibility.
Assessment of the Issues
17. I must consider whether the judge erred in law in such a way that the decision should be set aside. In the light of the issues raised in the grounds and submissions and the fact that Ms Brocklesby-Weller accepted that they did raise some issues of concern, I am satisfied that the judge did err in law such that the decision should be set aside. So far as the report following the incident on 17 June 2015 is concerned the judge regarded it as significant that the document made no mention whatsoever of trauma of any kind to the grandfather in the attack and no mention of his subsequent death before the certificate was issued. However, this has failed to take into account the appellant's evidence that the attack was reported to the police on 17 June 2015 and that it was the appellant's evidence that there was no further updating of the information. If correct, in these circumstances it would be an error to expect the police report to include information about the grandfather's death or any trauma in the attack.
18. I am also satisfied that the judge erred by drawing an adverse inference about the credibility of the account in relation to the attack on 17 June 2015 by his comment that there was no depiction of fire damage to the house. It had not been part of the appellant's case that these photographs showed damage caused by the attack. The judge referred to an indistinct photograph at page 144 of the appellant's bundle but commented that this was identified by the appellant as simply showing damage to stock. The other photograph relating to the house was at 171 of the bundle but the appellant had never suggested that it showed fire damage.
19. I am also find that there is substance in ground 5 that the judge erred by commenting at [41]-[43] that the appellant did not name any individual tribal leaders and that the only tribal involvement was at the hospital. However, the judge did provide names of Abu Zaid tribe members and there was evidence in the appellant's statement dealing with issues of tribal involvement.
20. The grounds relating to plausibility and issues arising from the document about the land owned by the appellant's mother, if they stood by themselves, would not be sufficient to show that the judge had erred in law but when they are taken with the factors identified in grounds 1, 2 and 5 I am satisfied that the judge has erred in law by taking a number of inaccurate and therefore irrelevant matters into account when assessing the appellant's credibility. I am satisfied that these are such that they do undermine the safety of the judge's finding on credibility and accordingly the decision should be set aside.
21. Both representatives agreed that in these circumstances the proper course was for the appeal to be remitted to the First-tier Tribunal for a full re-hearing.

Decision
22. The First-tier Tribunal erred in law and the decision is set aside. The appeal is remitted to the First-tier Tribunal for reconsideration by way of a full re-hearing before a different judge. No anonymity direction was made by the First-tier Tribunal.

Signed H J E Latter Date: 16 January 2017

Deputy Upper Tribunal Judge Latter