Tribunal decisions

The decision

Upper Tribunal
(Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: PA/04098/2016

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Heard at Manchester
Decision & Reasons Promulgated
On April 24, 2017
On April 26, 2017

Before

DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE ALIS

Between

MR A A A F
(ANONYMITY DIRECTION MADE)
Appellant
and

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent

Representation:

For the Appellant: Mr Wood (Legal Representative)
For the Respondent: Mr McVeetie, Senior Home Office Presenting Officer

DECISION AND REASONS
1. The appellant is a national of Egypt. He applied for asylum on September 17, 2012 but the respondent refused his application on April 4, 2016.
2. The appellant appealed that decision on April 25, 2016 under Section 82(1) of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002.
3. His appeal came before Judge of the First-tier Tribunal Heynes (hereinafter called the Judge) on August 16, 2016 and in a decision promulgated on September 6, 2016 the Judge dismissed his appeal. That decision was appealed but Judge of the First-tier Tribunal Pedro refused to give permission to appeal. The grounds were renewed to the Upper Tribunal and Upper Tribunal Judge Smith granted permission to appeal on November 17, 2016 and the matter came before me on the above date for an error of law hearing.
4. I extend the anonymity order in this case.
SUBMISSIONS
5. Mr Wood adopted the grounds of appeal and submitted the Judge had materially erred by failing to make findings and/or give weight to seals endorsed on a document that had been submitted. The untranslated document at page 9 of the appellant’s bundle contained two court seals. The document had been translated and whilst the Judge found the document may not make sense it had been incumbent on him to consider the legitimacy of the document having regard to the principles of Tanveer Ahmed (Documents unreliable and forged) Pakistan [2002] UKIAT 00439.
6. Mr McVeetie adopted the Rule 24 response dated December 1, 2016. He submitted that the Judge had considered the evidence in the round and had quite properly examined the translation. The Judge found the document was largely incomprehensible and did not assist the appellant. He was not required to make a specific finding on the stamps but this could be inferred by his rejection of the document.
7. I reserved my decision.
FINDINGS
8. The Judge was concerned with a protection application and in support of his case the appellant submitted a document (and envelope) that he claimed demonstrated he was at risk of a three-year sentence if he were to be returned to Egypt.
9. The Judge took oral evidence from the appellant and recorded the basis of his claim between paragraphs [9] and [11] of his decision. The Judge then identified the issues he had to consider including the fact the appellant faced a prison sentence and serious harm. The Judge then considered the documents that had been produced to the Tribunal and respondent. He considered those between paragraphs [16] and [24].
10. In particular, at paragraph [17] he found the document at page 9 of the appellant’s bundle to be “patently unreliable”. The translation into English was very poor and the Judge concluded the document was either not accurately translated or was accurately translated but made no sense. At paragraph [18] the Judge pointed out an inherent error.
11. Mr Wood submits that the Judge should have given weight to the stamps on the original document.
12. Whilst the Judge could have commented on those stamps it is clear that he did not accept the documents as genuine and gave reasons for his conclusions and the only issue is whether his failure to spell that out amounted to an error in law.
13. I reject Mr Wood’s submission on this point. Permission to appeal was given on the basis it was arguable there had been an error in law. A close look at the whole decision leaves me in no doubt that the Judge considered this and other documents in the round and made findings that were open to him. Mr Wood’s submissions and grounds of appeal amount to nothing more than a mere disagreement with the decision.
14. In the circumstances I find there was no error in law and I dismiss the appeal.

Notice of Decision
15. I find no error in law and uphold the original decision.

Signed Date April 24, 2017

Deputy Upper Tribunal Judge Alis

TO THE RESPONDENT
FEE AWARD

I make no fee award because I have dismissed the appeal.

Signed Date April 24, 2017

Deputy Upper Tribunal Judge Alis