Tribunal decisions

The decision

Upper Tribunal
(Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: PA/03569/2015

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Heard at Glasgow
Decision & Reasons Promulgated
on 17 January 2017
on 24 January 2017

Before

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE MACLEMAN

Between

KAMYAR ADHAMI
Appellant
and

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT

Respondent

For the Appellant: Mr K H Forrest, Advocate, instructed by Katani & Co, Solicitors
For the Respondent: Me M Matthews, Senior Home Office Presenting Officer

DETERMINATION AND REASONS
1. The appellant appeals against a determination by First-tier Tribunal Judge Gillespie, promulgated on 9 September 2016.
2. At paragraph 48 the judge said:
Having considered the totality of the evidence, I am not persuaded the appellant has rebutted the conclusions by the SSHD, particularly in light of the background evidence. According to his account, he was coerced into a very amateurish smuggling of political materials and I am not persuaded his evidence is reliable on the point.
3. The first ground of appeal is that the judge erred on the claim related to political opinion by giving no reasons, or inadequate reasons, for not accepting the appellant's account; having summarised both sides, the judge preferred the respondent's at paragraph 48, but did not say why.
4. The second ground is error on the claim based on conversion to Christianity; if the judge's reasoning was that an untruthful person cannot be a Christian, and the appellant is an untruthful person on the first aspect of the claim, and so not a convert, that finding must fail if the first one fails.
5. Mr Forrest accepted that it is not necessarily an error for a judge to adopt the reasoning of one of the parties, but argued that was not what the judge did. He said that the judge had not tested the appellant's evidence about how he was coerced into assisting PJAK, other than by brief reference to the background evidence. He accepted that there were other reasons stated for the finding on conversion, but submitted that the falsity of the first claim remained central, and that the judge had not explained why the evidence of witnesses from the Church to the genuine nature of the conversion was not accepted; it was not open to the judge, on a finding that the witnesses were genuine, to "reduce" their evidence. The first finding being bereft of reasoning, the case as a whole should be remitted to the FtT.
6. Mr Matthews submitted that paragraph 48 had to be read fairly and in context. It came after setting out both the respondent's detailed examination of the claim and the appellant's responses, point by point. The respondent's analysis and the background evidence were powerfully against the appellant, and the judge's conclusions soundly based on those materials. The appellant chose to set out his statement in the form of a series of rebuttals, which on examination were no more than repetition and denial, not engaging in any substantive way with the points at issue. On their own evidence, PJAK did not operate in Iraq and did not operate in the way the appellant alleged. Reference to the evidence put paragraph 48 into context and showed that it was brief but sufficient. As to conversion, the arbiter was not any witness but the judge. The sincerity of witnesses did not compel a finding about the appellant's state of mind. The judge was entitled to take the falsity of the first claim as a point against the appellant on the conversion claim.
7. I reserved my decision.
8. It is usually less than ideal simply to endorse the case of a party, but there are instances where it is justified to adopt the reasoning of one side.
9. Where, as here, the respondent issued a detailed and cogent decision, and the appellant replied in effect with a corresponding list of bland denials and disagreements, there was no need to go into each, point by point.
10. Sensibly and in context, the judge decides at paragraph 48 that the likelihood of events claimed is simply not supported by background materials, including those sourced from PJAK, and that the appellant has refuted none of the analysis of the respondent.
11. It is of course relevant and supportive for a claimed Christian convert to produce witnesses from the church who believe him to have become a genuine Christian. Contrary to the submission on his behalf, however, such evidence does not, if accepted, become conclusive. Difficult as it may be, the judge has to make up his own mind on that, based on all the evidence. That is what the judge did in this instance. He reached a conclusion within his lawful scope, for which he gave legally adequate reasons.
12. The decision makes it very clear to the appellant why his claims have failed. He continues to insist on both aspects of his case, but no error of law is disclosed in either branch.
13. The determination of the First-tier Tribunal shall stand.
14. No anonymity direction has been requested or made.

23 January 2017
Upper Tribunal Judge Macleman