Tribunal decisions

The decision

IAC-AH-DN-V1

Upper Tribunal
(Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: PA/03254/2015

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Heard at City Centre Tower Birmingham
Decision & Reasons Promulgated
On 13th March 2017
On 04th April 2017

Before

DEPUTY upper tribunal JUDGE RENTON

Between

m o
(ANONYMITY DIRECTION made)
Appellant
and

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent

Representation:
For the Appellant: Mr R Sharif of Fountains Solicitors
For the Respondent: Mr D Mills, Senior Home Office Presenting Officer

DECISION AND REASONS
Introduction
1. The Appellant is a male citizen of Iraq born on 11th August 1986. He entered the UK illegally on 4th July 2015 and claimed asylum three days later. That application was refused for the reasons given in the Respondent’s letter of 17th November 2015. The Appellant appealed, and his appeal was heard by First-tier Tribunal Judge Dhaliwal (the Judge) sitting at Birmingham on 4th July 2016. He decided to dismiss the appeal on asylum, humanitarian protection, and human rights grounds for the reasons given in his Decision dated 23rd July 2016. The Appellant sought leave to appeal that decision, and on 21st October 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. Leave to appeal was granted on only one ground namely “it is arguable that the Judge failed to give adequate reasons for dismissing the appeal on asylum grounds.”
3. The Judge dismissed the appeal on asylum grounds because he found the Appellant’s evidence to be lacking in credibility and he did not believe the Appellant’s account of events in Iraq. That being the case, the Judge was not satisfied the Appellant was at risk on return.
4. At the hearing before me, Mr Sharif argued that the Judge had erred in law in coming to this conclusion. This was because the Judge stated at paragraph 23 of the Decision that he had attached “significant weight” to his finding that the Appellant’s credibility was damaged under the provisions of Section 8 of the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc.) Act 2004 as the Appellant had not applied for asylum in safe countries such as Italy and France during his journey to the UK. The Judge had not taken into account and had made no findings in respect of the explanation given by the Appellant for that failure in his statement contained in the Bundle before the Judge.
5. In response, Mr Mills submitted that there was no such error of law. It was a matter for the Judge as to what weight he decided to attach to the damaged credibility factor. The Judge had decided to attach significant weight, and had explained his reasons for so doing. In any event, this was only one factor relating to the credibility of the Appellant which the Judge had considered. He had dealt with all the evidence in the round and had given a number of other reasons for his adverse credibility finding.
6. I find no error of law in the decision of the Judge which I therefore do not set aside. The Judge came to a conclusion as to the credibility of the factor which was open to him on the evidence before him and which he fully explained. From paragraph 21 of the Decision, the Judge lists a number of material inconsistencies in the Appellant’s account, noting that “core matters of evidence changed at each stage that the Appellant gave evidence.” At paragraph 22 of the decision, the Judge listed a number of other reasons for doubting the credibility of the Appellant. In addition to those reasons, the Judge attached significant weight to the fact that the Appellant’s credibility was damaged owing to his failure to seek asylum in safe countries during his journey to the UK. As Mr Mills argued, the weight to be attached to that factor was a matter for the Judge, and it was open to him to attach significant weight for the reasons which he fully explained.
7. For these reasons I find no error of law in the decision of the Judge which I do not set aside.

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.

Signed Date 31st March 2017

Deputy Upper Tribunal Judge Renton