PA/03553/2015

• Status of case: Unreported
• Hearing date: 12 Dec 2017
• Promulgation date: 22 Jan 2018
• Publication date: 8 Feb 2018
• Last updated on: 8 Feb 2018

The decision

Upper Tribunal
(Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: PA/03553/2015


THE IMMIGRATION ACTS


Heard at Manchester
Decision & Reasons Promulgated
On 12th December 2017
On 22nd January 2018



Before

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE KING TD


Between

MR KHALID QADIR MINAAI
Appellant
and

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent


Representation:
For the Appellant: Miss Gita Patel, Counsel, instructed by Broudie Jackson & Canter Solicitors
For the Respondent: Mr A McVeety, Home Office Presenting Officer


DECISION AND REASONS
1. The appellant is a citizen of Iran born on 1st September 1997. He entered the United Kingdom illegally and sought to claim asylum on the basis that he and others were engaged in the process of smuggling alcohol and that his identity in that enterprise was now known and that he would suffer death from violence or imprisonment were he to return. That claim was considered by the Secretary of State and in a decision dated 26th November 2015 the claim for protection was refused.
2. The appellant exercised his right to appeal against that decision which appeal came before First-tier Tribunal Somal on 17th February 2017. In a determination dated 27th February 2017 the appeal was dismissed.
3. A challenge has been made to the decision and leave was granted to argue the matter before the Upper Tribunal on the basis essentially of burden and standard of proof or upon any other grounds.
4. Thus the matter comes before me to determine the issue.
5. It is a detailed determination. The only evidence in support of the claim is that of the appellant himself. In those circumstances the Judge looked closely at the accounts as given. In the determination the Judge paid regard to the screening interview and noted that there were discrepancies between that and the asylum interview itself. It was noted that there were discrepancies between the asylum interview and further statements made by or on behalf of the appellant.
6. The grounds of appeal essentially contended that the Judge gave excessive weight to the screening interview and failed to acknowledge that it was only a preliminary fact finding interview and that therefore detail was not necessarily to be expected. Reliance had been placed particularly upon JA (Afghanistan) [2014] EWCA Civ 450.
7. The grounds contended that the Judge employed an unreasonably high standard of proof to the matter and that the discrepancies were not such as to detract from the overall cogency of the account.
8. It cannot be said that the Judge was unaware of the detail of the account as that was set out in some detail in the determination.
9. In particular the appellant contended that on 2nd August 2015 his group was ambushed by the authorities. He managed to escape but others were caught and arrested. With the assistance of his brother and maternal uncle he managed to leave Iran and eventually arrived in the United Kingdom. The penalty for smuggling alcohol was imprisonment. At the screening interview the appellant contended that that was what he was doing with others but in his interview he added an additional element to his claim, namely that, unbeknown to him, the group with whom he was involved was also carrying drugs. That carried a death penalty and it was his contention that those who had been arrested of his group had been executed. Initially he said that his brother had contacted him to give him this information but later he said that he had in fact contacted his brother.
10. In the screening interview the appellant did not know the date when the authorities found the alcohol but in the asylum interview several months later he was very specific about the date. He was asked why he had not mentioned the date earlier and he said that he had been tired at the screening interview.
11. It was the view of the Judge that the appellant had in fact embellished his account after the screening interview to introduce drugs because the penalty was far more severe at the hands of the authority to do that. The Judge could not rule out that the account had been well rehearsed and researched. Such did not impose any higher nor standard of proof, rather is a conclusion which was open to the Judge to make having regard to the evidence before her.
12. It was clear that the Judge, although paying significant regard to the screening interview, also had regard to the asylum interview itself and to the submissions dated 23rd November 2015 made on behalf of the appellant.
13. The Judge found that the account of the appellant was internally inconsistent and had developed over time.
14. It seems to me that the Judge was perfectly entitled to come to those conclusions and that there was no imbalance in consideration nor any undue or unfair weight attached to one part of the evidence in particular to the detriment of another.
15. It is to be noted that the appellant came to the United Kingdom very soon after the events which he seeks to describe. It is reasonable to expect that details would be clear in the memory and recollection of the appellant.
16. The screening interview was conducted on 25th August 2015. It was his position then that he feared the authorities because they had found his alcohol and his brother had told him that the authorities were looking for him. At the date of the screening interview he indicated that he had left Iran about fifteen to twenty days beforehand.
17. The interview itself was conducted on 16th November 2015 at which time the appellant was contending that he now found out from his brother about the drugs. It was claimed that his other colleagues had already been executed. The drugs had been found.
18. No details were given as to when such drugs were found but that fact came from the brother, the same brother seemingly who, at the time of the screening interview, had merely indicated to the appellant that alcohol had been found and no mention had been made at that stage of drugs. It was claimed that the authorities had arrested the group in August and if there had been drugs it would no doubt had been a fact known to the brother at the earlier stage of conversation.
19. I find that the Judge was entitled to find the appellant's account to lack credibility both as to his participation in alcohol smuggling and particularly so in drugs.
20. In those circumstances the appeal before the Upper Tribunal is dismissed. The decision of the First-tier Tribunal is upheld, namely that the appeal stands dismissed on asylum grounds, on humanitarian protection grounds and on the grounds of human rights.
No anonymity direction is made.


Signed Date 19 January 2018

Upper Tribunal Judge King TD