Tribunal decisions

The decision

Upper Tribunal
(Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: PA/05002/2017

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Heard at Field House
Decision & Reasons Promulgated
On 25 April 2018
On 2 May 2018

Before

DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE SHAERF

Between

recuan (aka Rezhwan) [f]
(anonymity direction not made)
Appellant
and

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent

Representation:
For the Appellant: Mr I Palmer of Counsel instructed by Barnes Harrild & Dyer, solicitors
For the Respondent: Mr N Bramble, Specialist Appeals Team

ERROR OF LAW DECISION AND REASONS
1. The Appellant is a national of Iraq born on [ ] 1998. He is a Sunni Kurd. He arrived in the United Kingdom as an unaccompanied asylum-seeking child but attained majority before the date of the Respondent's decision under appeal.
2. He claimed he left Iraq following the destruction of his village by ISIS/Da'esh and that he cannot safely return as there is nowhere to go to and because he cannot relocate in his home area of the Kurdish Regional Governate (KRG) because his family are the subject of a blood feud following his father's killing of his brother, the Appellant's uncle.
Proceedings in the First-tier Tribunal
3. By a decision promulgated on 19 July 2017 Judge of the First-tier Tribunal Greasley accepted the Appellant's account of his family's move from Erbil in the KRG to a village near Mosul but not that his family was the subject of a blood feud. He noted the Appellant had made an asylum claim in Hungary where he had claimed to be a Syrian national. He made adverse credibility findings and dismissed the appeal on all grounds.
4. On 13 December 2017 Judge of the First-tier Tribunal Foudy refused the Appellant permission to appeal. The application for permission to appeal was renewed to the Upper Tribunal. The application unnecessarily addressed at length the basis upon which the First-tier Tribunal had refused permission to appeal and then relied on the same grounds as had been submitted to the First-tier Tribunal.
5. On 6 March 2018 Deputy Judge of the Upper Tribunal Norton-Taylor granted permission to appeal on the grounds that the First-tier Tribunal Judge arguably failed to make sufficient findings or give sufficient reasons in respect of core elements of the Appellant's claim and arguably may not have adequately considered the relevance of the Appellant's travel and arrival in the United Kingdom as a minor.
6. The Respondent filed a response under Procedure Rule 24 asserting she had made appropriate allowance for the Appellant's youth and had given adequate reasons for his conclusions.
The Hearing in the Upper Tribunal
7. Mr Bramble accepted that the Appellant had travelled to the United Kingdom while a minor. The decision of the First-tier Tribunal had mentioned the claimed blood feud. The Respondent would rely on her Rule 24 response to the decision of the Upper Tribunal to grant permission.
8. Mr Palmer relied on the grounds upon which permission had been granted. The Judge's treatment of the claimed blood feud had been cursory and was insufficient to support the decision to treat it as not credible.
Findings and Consideration
9. The Judge accepted the Appellant had lived in Erbil in the KRG and that his family had moved to a village outside Mosul but rejected his claim he could not return to the KRG because of a blood feud. At paragraph 38 of his decision the account of the blood feud was rejected for want of evidence. Corroboration of a claim is not required in international surrogate protection claims and other than a reference to the late mention of the Appellant's paternal uncles being police officers, no adequate reason beyond the lack of corroboration is given for the rejection of the Appellant's claim that his family is involved in a blood feud in the KRG. There was no assessment of the Appellant's claim that he had left the village near Mosul because ISIS or Da'esh had taken over his village. These omissions cast sufficient doubt on the reliability of the Judge's adverse findings that his decision should be set aside and re-heard.
10. Findings of fact will need to be made particularly in relation to the claimed blood feud and risk on return. Having regard to Practice Statement 7.2(B) and the nature and extent of the fact-finding required, I consider it appropriate to remit the appeal to the First-tier Tribunal for re-hearing.
11. Generally, I am reluctant to preserve findings of fact about part of any Appellant's narrative but having considered the Judge's decision I find it is appropriate to preserve the findings that the Appellant entered the United Kingdom as a minor and attained his majority before the Respondent's decision under appeal; that he was born in Erbil in the KRG and at some point and for some reason the family moved from the KRG to a village near Mosul outside the KRG which in 2015 was attacked by ISIS/Da'esh. The issue why the family moved to the village near Mosul which ISIS/Da'esh attacked and what the Appellant did thereafter will have to be considered and findings re-made by the First-tier Tribunal.

SUMMARY OF DECISION

The decision of the First-tier Tribunal contained a material error of law such that it should be set aside, save as already specified. The appeal is remitted for hearing afresh on the basis specified to the First-tier Tribunal by a Judge other than Judge Greasley.

No anonymity direction is made.

Signed/Official Crest Date 01. v. 2018

Designated Judge Shaerf
A Deputy Judge of the Upper Tribunal