Tribunal decisions

The decision

IAC-AH-co-V1

Upper Tribunal
(Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: pa/04123/2016

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Heard at Bradford
Decision & Reasons Promulgated
On 26 September 2016
On 12 December 2016

Before

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE CLIVE LANE

Between

Ako Muhsen Agha
(ANONYMITY DIRECTION not made)
Appellant
and

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent

Representation:
For the Appellant: In person
For the Respondent: Mr Diwnycz, Senior Home Office Presenting Officer

DECISION AND REASONS
1. The appellant is Ako Muhsen Agha who was born on 26 July 1992 and is a male citizen of Iran. He arrived in the United Kingdom in October 2015 and claimed asylum. His claim was refused by a decision of the respondent on 12 April 2016. The appellant appealed to the First-tier Tribunal (Judge Myers) which, in a decision promulgated on 19 July 2016, dismissed the appeal. The appellant now appeals, with permission, to the Upper Tribunal.
2. The appellant attended the Upper Tribunal hearing in person. I was careful to explain the procedures of the Tribunal to the appellant and to use language avoiding legal jargon. I asked the appellant to tell me if there was any part of the proceedings which he did not understand. He was assisted in court by a Kurdish Sorani interpreter with whom he appeared to have no difficulty communicating.
3. There are two grounds of appeal. First, it is submitted that the judge failed to make a clear finding as to whether the appellant left Iran illegally. Secondly, the appellant submits that the judge failed properly to consider his sur place activities in the United Kingdom on behalf of the KDPI.
4. The grounds have no merit. First, the judge did not believe any part of the appellant's account as to his claimed involvement with the KDPI or otherwise. At [32], she wrote:
I therefore conclude that the appellant did not face a real risk on return to Iraq either on the basis of what would happen to him when questioned at the airport or subsequently if he was convicted of an offence of illegal exit.
5. It is true the judge did not make a specific finding as to whether the appellant had left Iran illegally. However, I consider her findings at [32] to be sufficient to cover any possible risk to the appellant solely on account of his having left Iran illegally and having returned to their country as a failed asylum seeker who had no security or criminal profile in Iran whatever. The judge's findings are wholly in line with current country guidance (SSH and HR (illegal exit: failed asylum seeker) Iran CG [2016] UKUT 00308 (IAC).
6. With regards to the second ground of appeal, the appellant claimed that, notwithstanding that he is illiterate, he maintained a Facebook page which he supported the KDPI and criticised the Iranian government. What the judge says at [28] is a little unclear; she speaks of the appellant having "fabricated a Facebook account in a cynical attempt to bolster his claim." I am not entirely clear what she means by "fabricated" in that context given that the appellant was able to show the judge printouts from a Facebook account. However, the judge went on [29] to
find that the appellant's activities in the UK are unlikely to bring him to the attention of the Iranian authorities. Although the printouts of his Facebook account bear an unclear photograph they appear to be under a pseudonym of Ako Arabi Mohsen and none contain original material. I was not given any evidence of the privacy settings on his account or how these posts would be accessed without someone knowing the log in details or how the post could be directly linked to the appellant.
7. It was up to the judge to decide whether the photograph of the appellant was "unclear" or otherwise. The grounds simply disagree with the judge at this point. As for the pseudonym, the judge's point is well made; it is unclear why the Iranian authorities, even if they were interested in the account at all (which seems unlikely), would associate the appellant with a Facebook account in the name of a different individual. At the hearing, the appellant insisted that Arab Arabi Mohsen was the name which he had used when he had claimed asylum in the United Kingdom and that his name had in some way been incorrectly recorded or transliterated. However, both the asylum interview record and the screening interview are clearly shown to have been provided in the name Ako Mohsen Agha. It was also open to the judge to query the evidence regarding privacy settings; it was for the appellant to prove his case to prove to the judge that postings on the Facebook account would be visible to third parties (including the Iranian government). His failure to do so has, not surprisingly, led to the judge finding that the appellant is not at real risk in Iran on account of any Facebook or other internet activities with which he may be associated. The judge has reached an outcome clearly available to her on the evidence and has supported that outcome with cogent reasons. There is nothing in the grounds of appeal which significantly challenge the judge's findings.
Notice of Decision

This appeal is dismissed. There is no payment of a fee order.

No anonymity direction is made.

Signed Date 2 November 2016

Upper Tribunal Judge Clive Lane