Tribunal decisions

The decision

Upper Tribunal
(Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: PA/02881/2016

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Heard at Glasgow
Decision & Reasons Promulgated
On 19 April 2017
On 20 April 2017

Before

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE MACLEMAN

Between

O M H G E
Appellant
and

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT

Respondent

For the Appellant: Mr K H Forrest, Advocate, instructed by Ferial, Solicitors, London
For the Respondent: Mr M Matthews, Senior Home Office Presenting Officer

DETERMINATION AND REASONS

1. The appellant is a citizen of Egypt. He sought protection, claiming to be a senior member of the Muslim Brotherhood and an officeholder in the Freedom and Justice Movement (FJM).
2. The respondent refused the appellant’s claim for reasons explained in a letter dated 15 March 2016.
3. First-tier Tribunal Judge Farrelly dismissed the appellant’s appeal by decision issued on 8 December 2016.
4. The appellant sought permission to appeal from the FtT, on 4 grounds.
5. The FtT granted permission on ground 2 only, “failure to make findings on material evidence”, being documentary evidence.
6. In his skeleton argument and oral submissions Mr Forrest expanded as follows. At paragraph 22 of its decision the FtT describes a document at page 77 of the appellant’s bundle as “a statement said to be from a lawyer… stating he has acted for the former President and authorised the appellant’s attendance as a delegate in the elections…”. It is not. It is a letter from a lawyer who is acting for the lawyer who acted for the former president authorising the appellant to act as a delegate. The FtT at paragraph 23 refers to documents which narrate a series of court hearings, but fails to mention that the appellant is specifically named as one of the accused. Other documents include photographs of the appellant as a leading member of the Muslim Brotherhood, and at Raaba Square. Under reference to Tanveer Ahmed [2002] UKIAT 00439, the FtT erred at paragraphs 25, 26 and 27 by focusing on whether the documentary evidence was genuine as to opposed to whether, having regard to the tribunal’s other findings, these were documents which could be relied upon. The documentary evidence was significant in that it purported to show that the appellant was a person of significance in the Muslim Brotherhood and in the FJM, and that he took part in demonstrations. The FtT fell into an error of not assessing the credibility of the appellant in the round: the assessment was made on the basis of the oral evidence of the appellant and his witness, but not in relation to the documentary evidence. The FtT, if it did take the documents into account, failed to give reasons why it did not accept that they were reliable. Having regard to the importance of the issue whether the appellant was a high-ranking member of the MB and the FJM, it could not be said from the passages in the decision referring to the documentation that reasons had been given for not accepting their credibility.
7. Mr Matthews submitted as follows. The judge correctly directed himself in terms of Tanveer Ahmed at paragraph 14. There was no reason to think that he did not apply that approach when returning to the matter at paragraph 25, which was crucial. The judge said there that he had “no way of knowing the genuineness” of the documentation, which was a statement of the obvious. In the last sentence of that paragraph he said, “Beyond my assessment of overall credibility I have no way of testing the truth of the claim made by his witness about his involvement”. The appellant criticised that sentence as going to the approach to the documents, but it was directed at the oral evidence of the supporting witness. The decision showed that the judge was aware of the documentary evidence before him, and its significance to the claim advanced. At paragraphs 26 to 28 he gave various reasons for rejecting the credibility of the evidence from the appellant. None of those reasons contained any error. All those reasons were relevant in assessment of the whole evidence in the manner required by Tanveer Ahmed. The judge stated no express conclusion on the reliability of the documents, but he had directed himself on the need to assess their reliability in the round and in the context of the whole claim. Plainly in that context he had not found them reliable. No error of law was disclosed.
8. I reserved my decision.
9. Whether the item at page 77 of the appellant’s bundle is a letter rather than a statement is immaterial. The judge does not say specifically that the court documents include the appellant’s name as one of the accused, but he plainly records the appellant’s case as being that he is subject to documented court proceedings.
10. The judge at paragraphs 26 to 28 states several sensible reasons for not accepting the evidence from the appellant:
unlikely absence from the protest at a crucial time;
wanted by the authorities while matters dragged on over an extended period, but nothing happened to him;
no explanation for being unaware of the court proceedings, or why no sanctions for failure to attend;
able to leave openly for Germany and for the UK, inconsistent with claim to be of high rank and interest;
gaps in knowledge inconsistent with claim to be of such high level as a potential Parliamentary candidate;
considerable disparity over numbers killed in the massacre;
could not have remained in the country so long and left with so little difficulty;
failure to claim while on a trip to Germany;
not availing himself of opportunity to remain in Germany; and
not accepted his lawyer would advise him it was safe to return.
11. It is in that light that the judge assessed the documentary evidence (and the oral evidence of the witness) as to which he found no other real pointers. The judge had correctly stated the principles of Tanveer Ahmed. The decision does not disclose any failure to apply them.
12. The grounds and submissions disclose no failure to make findings, no error of legal approach to documentary evidence, no error regarding the burden of proof, and no error falling into any other legal category. On examination, the appeal is no more than disagreement with the adverse conclusion reached.
13. For completeness, I record that there is on file a letter dated 7 April 2017 from the appellant’s solicitors with copies and translations of 2 documents which were not before the FtT, asking for these to be considered. Mr Forrest (correctly) said that as the items had not been before the FtT (not having been received by the appellant until a later date) they could not be relevant to error of law; and that in any event their terms were not materially different from the material which had been before the tribunal.
14. The determination of the First-tier Tribunal shall stand.
15. The FtT made an anonymity direction. The matter was not addressed in the UT. Anonymity has been preserved in this decision.

19 April 2017
Upper Tribunal Judge Macleman