Tribunal decisions

The decision

Upper Tribunal
(Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: PA/05511/2016

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Heard at Glasgow
Determination issued
on 3 April 2017
On 5 April 2017

Before

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE MACLEMAN

Between

GUI QING WU
Appellant
and

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent

For the Appellant: Mr S Winter, instructed by Katani & Co, Solicitors
For the Respondent: Mr M Matthews, Senior Home Office Presenting Officer

DETERMINATION AND REASONS

1. The appellant is a citizen of China. She travelled to the UK in October 20014 on a valid passport, which she says she has since lost. She had a visit visa valid until March 2015. She sought asylum on 24 November 2015.
2. The respondent refused her claim for reasons explained in her decision dated 9 May 2016.
3. First-tier Tribunal Judge Doyle dismissing the appellant’s appeal for reasons explained in his decision promulgated on 23 November 2016.
4. The appellant appeals to the UT on these grounds:
The FtT reached a finding for which there was no or an insufficient evidential basis … the main reason the FtT refuses the appeal is that the appellant was able to leave China through the airport while subject to bail conditions, ¶14 f – g. The FtT cites country information at ¶12 … but none of the information cited supports such a finding …
The only information from the Home Office that the appellant has been able to find is in the CIG China, September 2015 at ¶8.1.1 that those deemed a threat to national security can be prohibited from leaving … there was no or insufficient evidence that the appellant was deemed a threat to national security or that due to having breached bail conditions she would be prohibited from leaving or … would be known to those at the airport.
The error is material because the only other reason relied upon by the FtT is s.8 of the 2004 Act which is not sufficient …
5. Mr Winter accepted that the respondent’s decision at ¶27-30 cited a document produced by the respondent at L2 of her bundle, information from the Refugee Board of China on the PSB national computer network, the Golden Shield project, and on whether a link was available at international airports. He said this was not definitive evidence that the appellant would have been prohibited from leaving. He referred to her evidence in which she said she was not sure whether a bribe had been paid to enable her to transit the airport, and suggested that such payment was the obvious inference to be drawn. Otherwise, there was no need for any irregularity in her passport and visa arrangements, and no explanation for use of snakeheads. He referred to the CIG at 8.1.1 onwards, which refers to some dissidents being allowed to leave as a form of exile. He submitted that the information was more ambivalent that the judge recognised, and did not support his findings at ¶14 g that her alleged crime would be viewed “as one of the most serious in China” and that “if her account were true she could not exit China through normal channels using her own passport”.
6. I prefer the counter-submission that the judge made sufficient reference to the evidence and that it supported his conclusion.
7. At ¶14 f the judge said, “The background materials indicate that the Chinese police regulate entry and exit ... and that they use a sophisticated computer system checking passports against entry on software which includes criminal record information”.
8. The information in document L is impeccably sourced, and describes a thorough and integrated network of records of Chinese citizens, including their law enforcement histories.
9. The judge was said to have gone too far in describing the appellant’s “crime”, the design of a leaflet on the instructions of her employer, as he did. However, the appellant claimed to be subject to a warrant identifying her (wrongly) as a member of the Xin Min party, a matter which had led to her employer being imprisoned for 10 years. That comes well up the scale.
10. The evidence does not justify the line of criticism that only those deemed to be a threat to national security would be screened out. The system is much more comprehensive than that. In any event, the alleged suspicion of the appellant might well reach the level of a perceived threat to national security.
11. The issue of delay in claiming might not have been enough to defeat the claim on its own; but it was a powerful reason, as explained at ¶15 h and i.
12. The determination of the First-tier Tribunal is not shown to be inadequately rooted in the evidence, and it shall stand.
13. No anonymity direction has been requested or made.

4 April 2017
Upper Tribunal Judge Macleman