Tribunal decisions

The decision

Upper Tribunal
(Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: PA/06181/2016

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Heard at Glasgow
Decision & Reasons Promulgated
on 7 March and 5 April 2017
on 6 April 2017

Before

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE MACLEMAN

Between

SADEGH SHARIATI
Appellant
and

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT

Respondent

For the Appellant: Mr S Winter, Advocate, instructed by Katani & Co, Solicitors
For the Respondent: on 7 March, no appearance;
on 5 April, Mr M Matthews, Senior Presenting Officer

DETRMINATION AND REASONS
1. By letter dated 24 May 2016 the respondent rejected the appellant’s protection claim as incredible (¶12-34). The only matter accepted was his Iranian nationality (¶35). In his decision promulgated on 24 October 2016, FtT Judge Blair also declined to accept the appellant as credible (¶2, reasons at ¶19-41).
2. On 7 March, Mr Winter helpfully confirmed that the appellant sought to argue only one ground, which, put shortly, is this:
Danian point. The judge erred in law by failing have regard to [case law] holding that activities other than bona fide activities could create refugee status… Opportunistic activity is not an automatic bar to asylum ... Whether a fear of persecution is well-founded is an objective question …
3. The case having been relisted, Mr Winter made oral submissions. He referred to the expert report by Dr Kakhi dated 26 September 2016; emphasised that the appellant’s evidence had been that if returned to Iran, he would proselytise his Christian faith; and pointed out that the appellant was disbelieved as to his motives, but not as to his actions.
4. It was accepted that there was no evidence that the Iranian authorities carry out surveillance of Iranian nationals attending Christian churches in the UK, and that the FtT made no finding that the appellant exited Iran illegally, a matter which might draw enquiry on return.
5. I did not require to hear from the respondent, and advised that the appeal would not succeed.
6. There was nothing before the tribunal by which it might sensibly have found that the appellant’s involvement in Christianity in the UK might come to attention of the authorities in Iran.
7. The appellant would without doubt be at risk if he were to evangelise in Iran; but on the findings reached, there was no reason to think it remotely likely that he might do so.
8. The appellant’s line of argument seeks to stretch the case law on sur place claims, country information and guidance on questioning of returnees, and legal dicta on when returnees may be expected to lie, beyond their capacity.
9. I do not think that a case might be constructed even if it were to be assumed that the appellant may return to Iran only as an identifiable failed asylum seeker; but he did not establish his claims about how he left Iran, so that assumption does not apply.
10. Even if the appellant were to be questioned, there is no reason to infer from the judge’s conclusions that in fact he might divulge that he has been observing Christian practices in the UK.
11. If such a situation is never going to arise, it is difficult to construct a protection claim from it. There is no reason to presume in his favour that if questioned, he would answer by confessing to a falsely manufactured claim.
12. The decision of the FtT shall stand.

5 April 2017
Upper Tribunal Judge Macleman