Tribunal decisions

The decision

Upper Tribunal
(Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: PA/03686/2015
PA/03689/2015

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Heard at Bradford
Decision & Reasons Promulgated
On 26 October 2016
On 28 October 2016

Before

DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE SAFFER

Between

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Appellant
and

MANSAF HARAM
FATMA HARAM
(NO ANONYMITY ORDER MADE)
Respondents

Representation:
For the Appellant: Mrs Peterson a Home Office Presenting Officer
For the Respondent: Mr Vaughan a Solicitor

DECISION AND REASONS

Background

1. For the purpose of continuity with the determination in the First-tier Tribunal I will hereinafter refer to the Secretary of State as the Respondent and Mr and Mrs Haram as the Appellants. I make no anonymity order it was not applied for and does not appear to be necessary.

2. The Respondent refused the Appellants' application for asylum and ancillary protection on 3 December 2015. The appeal against this was allowed by First-tier Tribunal Judge Atkinson ("the Judge") on humanitarian grounds only following a hearing on 8 August 2016.

The Judge's findings

3. In summary the Judge found that [36] there are numerous incidents of indiscriminate shelling in Libya, 2.4 million people are in need of protection, 425,000 people have been internally displaced, the United Kingdom authorities have stopped returns to Tripoli, there are some flights to Benghazi, [37] there has been a serious deterioration in the security situation in Libya, [40] if the Appellants returned to Libya they would face a real risk of serious harm, and even if they were able to land in Libya, in making their way to their home area they would effectively be entering a war zone.

The grant of permission

4. First-tier Tribunal Judge Brunnen granted permission to appeal (28 September 2016) purely on the basis of whether the Judge had addressed the option of internal relocation.

Respondent's position

5. If returns to Tripoli were not suspended, the Appellants could be there safely.

Appellants' position

6. Reliance was placed on the determination.

Discussion

7. FA (Libya: art 15(c)) Libya CG [2016] UKUT 00413 (IAC) guides me to the view that the question of whether a person is at art 15(c) risk in Libya should, until further Country Guidance, be determined on the basis of the individual evidence in the case.

8. The Judge did not therefore err by not reciting AT and Others (Article 15c; risk categories) Libya CG [2014] UKUT 00318 (IAC) as he did indeed determine the appeal purely on the basis of the evidence he had. It has not been established that any of the findings he made were factually inaccurate.

9. The Judge noted that the Appellants could not be returned to Tripoli because the Respondent is not returning people there. He was entitled to find that if they were able to land, in trying to get their home area they would be entering a war zone. This is not a lone male but a couple including a woman which carries an additional risk factor of which the Judge was plainly aware. Whilst the Judge could have given more detailed consideration to this, he was entitled to find that there was no internal flight alternative and that if they returned to Libya they would face a real risk of serious harm.

10. I am not therefore satisfied that the Judge made a material error of law.

Decision:

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.

Signed:
Deputy Upper Tribunal Judge Saffer
27 October 2016