Tribunal decisions

The decision

Upper Tribunal
(Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number PA/02877/2015

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Heard at Centre City Tower Decision and Reasons Promulgated
On 14th February 2017 On 3rd March 2017

Before

DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE PARKES

Between

K S
(ANONYMITY DIRECTION MADE)
Appellant
And

SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent

For the Appellant: Mr M Asmi (Counsel, instructed by Braithc RB Solicitors)
For the Respondent: Mr M Diwnycz (Home Office Presenting Officer)

DETERMINATION AND REASONS

1. The Appellant claimed asylum on the 1st of September 2015 on the basis of his assistance for the KDPI in leafleting and his being sought by the security forces in Iran following the arrest of his friend and principal contact with the group. The Judge found that the Appellant had not been involved in leafleting as he had claimed, his evidence being vague and inconsistent. With regard to his internet activities the Judge rejected the suggestion that he was a blogger as such but was, at most, passing on the writings of others and he would not be of interest to the authorities in Iran. He would not be at risk simply as being of Kurdish origin.

2. The Appellant's first application to the First-tier Tribunal for permission to appeal to the Upper Tribunal was rejected on the basis that the Judge was entitled to make the findings for the reasons given. On renewal to the Upper Tribunal Upper Tribunal Judge Perkins granted permission observing that the Judge may have appreciated the Iranian authorities near paranoia towards failed asylum seekers.

3. In submissions before the Upper Tribunal the Appellant's counsel relied on the grounds and submitted that the Judge had not considered relevant evidence or the Facebook evidence. It was submitted that the assessment was flawed as the Judge had missed out significant parts such as the risk to low level KDPI supporters such as those involved in leafleting. Mr Asmi also suggested that the finding that the Appellant had been vague was not justified by the information he had given in interview from question 64 to 95 and that the Appellant would be regarded as an online activist.

4. For the Respondent reliance was placed on the rule 24 response and it was submitted that the Judge had considered the case in the round and the Facebook evidence. There are degrees of literacy and the fact the Appellant is learning English does not affect his written Kurdish. It was questioned whether the Appellant knew what was being uploaded, it was being done on his behalf by a friend, the account may have been in his name but there was doubt about his involvement and engagement or his understanding. It would have been useful to know when the views had taken place or by whom and these could have been on the account before the Appellant posted anything.

5. The Judge did not reject the suggestion that those involved in the KDPI would be in danger from the security forces in Iran, the question was whether the Appellant was or would be perceived to be involved with the KDPI at the level he had stated. Had the case turned on the Judge making findings on alternative basis there may have been a legitimate complaint but the thrust of the decision was a rejection of his account. Accordingly the discussion below considers whether the Judge’s rejection of the Appellant's account was open to her for the reasons given.

6. The analysis of the Appellant's account is at paragraph 28 of the decision. In the course of the discussion that follows the Judge considered a number of the replies that the Appellant had given in interview quoting from questions 82, 86 and 93 and referring to other answers he had given.

7. Whilst Mr Asmi can point to information about the party being given in earlier replies the Judge was considering what it was that the Appellant had actually done and in the decision she identified inconsistencies and changes in the Appellant's account when pressed for detail, for example not giving leaflets to people but sticking them to walls and delivering them to houses. In rejecting the Appellant's evidence the Judge found he had not taken part in any activities and I find that the reasons she gave were justified on the replies that the Appellant had given. On the basis of those findings the Judge found that the Appellant had no profile relating to events in Iran. The case then turned on his sur place internet activities.

8. There were clear concerns with the Facebook account including the reference on the page to the owner attending Highschool which the Appellant had not, paragraph 31. In that paragraph the Judge also noted that the Appellant had not added any original content but had drawn from other sources. Given his stated illiteracy in Kurdish he cannot have known what was being selected or posted on the page and so he cannot have been responsible for what was being posted and so the scepticism about his role is justified. As the Judge noted in paragraph 31 in addition to the questions over the Appellant's involvement there was no encouragement to others to join anti-regime activities. The Judge added those observations to his lack of a profile in Iran.

9. The question is whether on return the Appellant would be regarded with suspicion by the Iranian authorities, i.e. would he be perceived to be the owner of the Facebook account? Clearly the Judge found that the Appellant would not be identified as being of interest and clearly had in mind the lower standard that applied having cited it at paragraph 8. Having set out the headnote in AB the Judge did consider the risk factors and against the serious concerns and significant doubts raised and considered about his sur place activities the Judge was entitled to find that the Appellant had not shown that he would be at risk.

CONCLUSIONS

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 the decision.

Anonymity

The First-tier Tribunal did not make an order pursuant to rule 45(4)(i) of the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal (Procedure) Rules 2005.

Given the publicity that Upper Tribunal decisions can attract I am satisfied that in the circumstances it is appropriate to make an anonymity direction in the following terms:

Direction regarding anonymity – rule 45(4)(ii) of the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal (Procedure) Rules 2005

Unless and until a tribunal or court directs otherwise, the Appellant is granted anonymity. No report of these proceedings shall directly or indirectly identify the Appellant or any member of the Appellant's family. This direction applies to the Appellant and the Respondent. Failure to comply with this direction could lead to Contempt of Court proceedings.

Fee Award

In dismissing this appal I make no fee award.

Signed:

Deputy Judge of the Upper Tribunal (IAC)

Dated: 3rd March 2017