Tribunal decisions

The decision

Upper Tribunal
(Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: PA/03524/2015

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Heard at Glasgow
Decision & Reasons Promulgated
on 7 February 2017
on 17 February 2017

Before

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE MACLEMAN

Between

T K F
Appellant
and

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent

For the Appellant: Mr S Martin, of Jain, Neil & Ruddy, Solicitors
For the Respondent: Mr M Mathews, Senior Home Office Presenting Officer

DETERMINATION AND REASONS
1. The appellant, a citizen of Iran, appeals against a decision by First-tier Tribunal Judge Bradshaw, promulgated on 20 October 2016, dismissing his appeal against refusal of protection.
2. The grounds are set out in 6 paragraphs over 11 pages, directed against a decision of 18 pages. They are at first sight composed mostly if not entirely of reassertion of the appellant's case and insistence that favourable rather than negative credibility conclusions should have been reached regarding the appellant's claimed history and in particular the sincerity of his conversion from Islam to Christianity.
3. At paragraph 2 of the grounds and in submissions the appellant complains about a matter which begins with the respondent's refusal letter at paragraphs 26 and 27. The letter relates that in a student visa application in 2013 the appellant said that in that year he had been to Saudi Arabia for pilgrimage, and finds that inconsistent with his statement at asylum interview that he went not for the haj but on a visit. The judge analysed this issue at paragraphs 83 - 97 and rejected the appellant's explanation, finding that the appellant had gone on pilgrimage (not the haj, which did not fit with the timetable) and this was inconsistent with his claimed attitude towards Islam. The appellant sought to demonstrate that the judge's view had no basis in evidence and was simply speculative. However, Mr Matthews drew attention to the underpinnings referred to by the judge. At interview Q/A 14 - 16 the appellant said he had never been outside Iran except to travel to Dubai to obtain his student visa for the UK. At Q/A 90 the statement on his visa application about visiting Saudi Arabia for pilgrimage was put to him. He said he went not for the haj, which happens at a specific time, but for a visit. He then said at Q/A 90 that he had forgotten about the visit, and at Q/A 91-93 to say that he did not fill in that part of the form, his agent did, because his English was not good, and he knew nothing about the reference to pilgrimage. The appellant makes much of the fact that the full copy of the visa form was not produced, but that is beside the point. The judge looked at this in detail and was entitled to find the appellant's explanation unsatisfactory and that he had been on pilgrimage. It is far from irrational to reject the appellant's convenient loss of memory of his trip to Saudi Arabia, until the existence of evidence was put to him, and his claimed lack of knowledge of a religious context.
4. The appellant was found to be an unsatisfactory witness about past political involvement. He now says that this chapter of evidence should have been held as immaterial to his present claim. However, there is no error of law in finding that the appellant's failure to provide honest information on another aspect "undermines his claimed conversion to Christianity" (paragraph 140). That is a rational approach to finding the facts.
5. The grounds and submissions found upon evidence from witnesses that the appellant "engaged with the Christian faith and was a committed believer" and say there were "no good grounds on which [that evidence] should have been rejected". However, far from rejecting the evidence of the witnesses the judge found them utterly sincere (paragraphs 132-139). That did not dictate his conclusion on whether the conversion was genuine or simply assumed to manufacture a claim.

6. I do not consider it necessary to go into any further detail. The case on the facts was fully advanced for the appellant in the FtT. It has been exhaustively presented again in the UT, but does not amount to more than insistence and disagreement. The decision as a whole provides an ample explanation to the appellant why the judge has found that he failed to establish his case. The grounds do not disclose that the making of the decision involved the making of any error on a point of law. The decision shall stand.
7. The anonymity direction made in the FtT is preserved. Unless and until a tribunal or court directs otherwise, the appellant is granted anonymity. No report of these proceedings shall directly or indirectly identify him or any member of their family. This direction applies both to the appellant and to the respondent. Failure to comply with this direction could lead to contempt of court proceedings.

16 February 2017
Upper Tribunal Judge Macleman