Tribunal decisions

The decision

Upper Tribunal
(Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number PA/03329/2017

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Heard at Liverpool Decision and Reasons Promulgated
On 15th December 2017 On 11th January 2018

Before

DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE PARKES

Between

ADNAM ABDULLAH
(ANONYMITY DIRECTION NOT MADE)
Appellant
And

SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent

Representation:

For the Appellant: Ms Faryl (Counsel)
For the Respondent: Mr C Bates (Home Office Presenting Officer)

DETERMINATION AND REASONS

1. The Appellant claimed asylum on the 1st of November 2016. The full facts of his claim are set out in the bundles in the Tribunal papers and summarised along with the reasons why the Secretary of State rejected the claim in the Refusal Letter of the 21st of March 2017. The Appellant's appeal against that decision was heard by First-tier Tribunal Judge A Hudson at Manchester on the 4th of May 2017 and the appeal dismissed for the reasons given in the decision promulgated on the 16th of May 2017.

2. The Appellant sought permission to appeal to the Upper Tribunal in grounds of application to the First-tier Tribunal of the 17th of September 2017. The application was considered by First-tier Tribunal Judge Dineen who refused the application on the basis that the grounds as drafted did not identify any arguable error and were simply an attempt to reargue the appeal.

3. The grounds were handwritten by the Appellant who at that stage did not have the benefit of legal representation. The Appellant stated that Judge Dineen had not made any mention of the supporting documents the Appellant had forwarded to the Arnhem Support Centre on the 11th of August. The Appellant did not believe that the Tribunal had fully considered all of the evidence relating to his case as presented at the hearing on the 4th of May.

4. Permission to appeal was granted by Upper Tribunal Judge Plimmer on the 16th of October 2017. In doing so Judge Plimmer found that it was arguable that the finding that the delay in claiming was implausible had not taken account of background evidence and had not properly explained why internal relocation to Baghdad was reasonable. With regard to the additional information it was not clear if that had been available to the First-tier Tribunal and that required clarification.

5. At the start of the hearing it was accepted that the additional documents referred to had not been before the First-tier Tribunal. I observed that it followed that there was no error so far as those documents were concerned. So far as the remaining grounds are concerned the representatives made submissions which are set out in the Record of Proceedings in line with their respective positions.

6. The evidence relating to the treatment of former Ba'ath Party members was set out in paragraph 20 and the somewhat dated but only Country Guidance case on the point cited in paragraph 22. It is not suggested that the Judge has misquoted or misunderstood the evidence in relation to the position of former Ba'ath Party members. The thrust of the evidence from the BKA v Sweden case and the November 2016 CPI report was that the senior members at risk had either been dealt with or fled abroad and membership by itself was insufficient. Whilst the case of OH dated back to 2004 the evidence considered then was consistent with that considered in paragraph 20.

7. In the course of the hearing I observed that more evidence would be required than simply a bald assertion of Ba'ath Party membership and asked what background evidence there was to show the Appellant would be at risk? Ms Faryl said that there was none, it was the evidence of the Appellant and there was the cumulative effect of the evidence. It was submitted that it was contradictory to find that the Appellant left for medical treatment but that he has family in Iraq.

8. The findings set out in paragraphs 21 and 22 cannot be said to be a simple rejection of the Appellant's case. The Judge considered the suggestion that the Appellant had been pursued to Tuz Khurmato and was entitled to find that if he was of sufficient interest to have been located there more would have happened to him than simply threatening letters. The Judge was entitled to find that it was inherently unlikely that there would be a delay in the light of the Appellant's account and the evidence relied on. I am satisfied that there is no error in this respect.

9. With regard to internal relocation this was considered in paragraph 31 where the Judge considered the Appellant's personal background, that he would be returned to Baghdad, his documentation and the presence of his family in Iraq. The Judge referred to the current country guidance case of BA (Returns to Baghdad) Iraq CG [2017] UKUT 18 (IAC).

10. The complaints made against the findings of the Judge in this regard do not fairly reflect the evidence and the observations of the Judge in the decision. The decision has to be read as a whole and the findings on the circumstances that the Appellant would face in Iraq on return were made in the context of the situation before he left and why, the absence of difficulties the Judge found he had had and the case law relating to the situation in Baghdad for those returning there and his still having family in the country. Read as a whole the decision was open to the Judge for the reasons given and the Judge was entitled to dismiss the appeal.

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 and I make no order.

Fee Award

In dismissing the appeal I make no fee award.

Signed:

Deputy Judge of the Upper Tribunal (IAC)

Dated: 10th January 2018