Tribunal decisions

The decision

IAC-AH-CJ-V1

Upper Tribunal
(Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: PA/03660/2015

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Heard at Bradford
Decision & Reasons Promulgated
On 3 January 2017
On 30 January 2017

Before

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE CLIVE LANE

Between

Saba Hagos
(no ANONYMITY DIRECTION)
Appellant
and

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent

Representation:
For the Appellant: Mr Tettey, instructed by Halliday Reeves
For the Respondent: Mrs Pettersen, Senior Home Office Presenting Officer

DECISION AND REASONS
1. The appellant, Saba Hagos, was born on 1 January 1990 and claims to be a citizen of Eritrea. She appealed against a decision of the respondent dated 26 November 2015 to give directions for her removal to Eritrea. The First-tier Tribunal (Judge Mensah) in a decision promulgated on 13 October 2016 dismissed the appeal. The appellant now appeals, with permission, to the Upper Tribunal.
2. There are a number of challenges to the decision. The judge had found that the appellant's account of her childhood in Eritrea was not credible. At [15], she wrote:
The appellant claims she moved back to Eritrea in 2000 for about 2 years. This would have been when she was aged 10-12. The refusal letter evidences compulsory education in Eritrea to age 14 years and argues it is not credible the appellant didn't go to school. There is no evidence either way as to whether children do remain at home and what happens if they don't go to school in Eritrea. The appellant says she assisted her mother but I am not satisfied this is credible as the appellant's mother was able to support them for 10 years in Ethiopia running a coffee shop without the appellant's assistance. Further it is not credible the appellant would not have attended compulsory education as she claims she couldn't speak Tigrinya and this would have been an opportunity to learn the native language and re-settle in her country of birth. Further, I find it undermines her claimed history even further that she spent 2 years in Eritrea aged 10-12 and yet is unable to speak no more than a few basic words of Tigrinya. It is not credible she would not have become more conversant in Tigrinya if she had spent 2 years there at such an age. This adds to further undermine her claim to have not picked up the language from her parents.
3. In so far as they challenge this analysis of credibility, the grounds of appeal are no more than a disagreement with findings which were open to the judge on the evidence. In particular, her observations regarding the appellant's inability to speak Tigrinya are particularly pertinent. There is no inconsistency in the judge's findings regarding education in Eritrea; the judge observes that there was no evidence "either way" as to whether the children had remained at home or went to school.
4. The appellant asserts that the judge wrongly held it against the appellant that she could not produce corroborative evidence of her claim to having remained in Sudan. The appellant claimed to have lived in Sudan from the ages of 14-24 years with her mother and yet had not produced any evidence from the mother. It was open to the judge to find that it was not credible that the appellant had failed to stay in touch with her mother.
5. The judge heard evidence from a witness, Mr Tesfay. The grounds assert that the evidence of the witness only supported the appellant's own account whereas the judge observed [17] that his evidence "did tend to support the appellant's claims and I have decided to consider it in the round with the rest of the evidence". I see no error in that approach. The judge accurately observed that the evidence was consistent with that of the appellant but she was also careful to consider the evidence in the round; the suggestion in the grounds of appeal that she should have attached especial evidence to this witness's testimony is not supportable.
6. The judge found that the appellant was not a Pentecostal Christian. At [19], she wrote:
The letter from the Grace Gospel Church in Leeds says she has attended since the 21 August 2015 on Wednesdays, Fridays and Sundays. The Reverend appears to have based his belief that she is a genuine Pentecostal on the fact that she has so attended. This is rather limited but I can understand that it is not the role of the Reverend to assess the credibility of his congregation. As he has not been called to give evidence I have no further information as his background and experience of asylum. I am unable to hear any more from him about his view and how it was formed. There is a second letter from a representative of a Lambeth Eritrean Community group. This is one of many letters from this organisation that I have seen lately. They all follow a standard format and cite the same methodology. This is very unhelpful as the letter refers to "Elders" from the same region who asked questions to establish the appellant's identity and nationality. There is no record of who those individuals are or their status in the UK. There is no record of the questions that were asked or the answers that were given. There is no record of what they knew about the appellant's asylum claim or if they had seen the refusal letter or record of interview. The author of the letter has not attended to provide any further information. This letter is of limited assistance in those circumstances.
The grounds do not challenge these detailed reasons given by the judge for finding that the appellant had a limited knowledge of Pentecostal Christianity; they only refer to a number of answers she gave at her asylum interview which the appellant claims indicate a knowledge of the religion. There was no reason to suppose that the judge did not consider the interview record when considering the evidence as a whole. There was nothing in the interview record which might compel the judge to find, contrary to other evidence, that the appellant's claimed religious beliefs were genuine. The judge was also entitled to find that it was not credible that the appellant (who claimed to have been "active in the Pentecostal faith from her birth") waited until she was 24 years old before she was baptised. The judge is not, as the grounds assert, substituting her own reasoning for that of the appellant. She is making a finding of fact based on the totality of the evidence. The ground of appeal is no more than a disagreement with that finding.
7. The judge found that the appellant was not an Eritrean national. The respondent had asserted that the appellant was an Ethiopian citizen. The grounds complain that the judge did not make a positive finding as to whether or not she was an Ethiopian citizen. That she failed to do so is not material. The appellant claimed to be Eritrean and the judge found, giving clear and cogent reasons to support her finding, that she was not. It was not necessary, in the circumstances, for the judge to go beyond that and determine the true nationality of the appellant.
8. For the reasons I have stated, the appeal is dismissed.

Notice of Decision
This appeal is dismissed.
No anonymity direction is made.

Signed Date 20 January 2017

Upper Tribunal Judge Clive Lane

TO THE RESPONDENT
FEE AWARD

I have dismissed the appeal and therefore there can be no fee award.

Signed Date 20 January 2017

Upper Tribunal Judge Clive Lane