Tribunal decisions

The decision

Upper Tribunal
(Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: PA/06187/2016

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Heard at Field House
Decision & Reasons Promulgated
On 19th April 2017
On 25th April 2017

Before

DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE J G MACDONALD

Between

the Secretary of State for the Home Department
Appellant
and

mr faisal ali
(ANONYMITY DIRECTION not made)
Respondent

Representation:
For the Appellant: Mr N Bramble, Senior Home Office Presenting Officer
For the Respondent: Mr S Jussab, Counsel instructed by Marks & Marks Solicitors

DECISION AND REASONS
1. I shall refer to Mr Ali as “the claimant”. He is a national of Pakistan whose appeal was allowed by First-tier Tribunal Judge Andonian (the judge) in a decision promulgated on 7th December 2016.
2. The judge noted the claimant’s account that his father had borrowed 40 lacs which was over £30,000 from his stepbrother but had not been able to pay back the money. As a result there were threats making life very unbearable for his father and family (paragraph 10 of the decision). The evidence was that his father had requested police assistance on several occasions but the police did not respond in his favour as his uncle was financially secure, highly influential and able to bribe the police (paragraph 11).
3. The judge noted that the respondent did not doubt the fact that there was a family feud (paragraph 14) and went on to consider whether the relocation of the claimant would be unduly harsh. The judge considered that with no job and no home he could not reasonably relocate (paragraph 16). He then went on to allow the appeal.
4. The grounds of application contend that the judge made a material misdirection in law. With reference to Januzi v SSHD & Ors [2006] UKHL 5 it said that the words “unduly harsh” set out the standard that must be met for internal relocation to be regarded as unreasonable. If the claimant can live a relatively normal life there judged by the standards that prevail in his country of nationality generally, and if he can reach the less hostile part without undue hardship or undue difficulty, it will not be unreasonable to expect him to move there. In addition the judge had failed to give adequate reasons and had failed to take into account the fact that the claimant was a healthy adult male with no dependants. Finally, the findings were perverse.
5. Before me Mr Bramble relied on the grounds and the grant of permission of Judge Grant-Hutchison dated 28th February 2017 when she noted that the claimant was a healthy adult male with no dependants. No reasons were given as to why he could not find employment in another city or why his family or other members of the family could not assist him. In the alternative, the claimant had had the confidence to live, study and presumably the willingness to find work in an alien country. In Mr Bramble’s submissions the decision of the judge was perverse and I was asked to set it aside and remake the decision dismissing the claimant’s appeal. For the claimant Mr Jussab said that the judge had considered all the relevant factors. He had a network of people in the UK which would not be there for him in Pakistan. There was no material error by the judge and the decision should stand. If I was against him on his primary submission then the case should be remitted back for a rehearing before the First-tier Tribunal.
6. I reserved my decision.
Conclusion
7. The judge accepted that the claimant feared his distant uncle who would do anything to obtain revenge (paragraph 13). He noted that the respondent did not doubt the fact that there was a family feud (paragraph 14). The judge noted the suggestion that the claimant could relocate to one of the cities such as Hyderabad or Islamabad where he could live free from any problems from his uncle, but the judge said that “the appellant does not know anyone in any of these cities and it would not be possible for him to live there”. He repeated that this was a young man who knows “nothing about such towns and cities and would have nowhere to go”. The judge continued in the same vein noting the claimant was from Lahore and that he had never been outside his home area (paragraph 15). The judge did not say that the reach of the distant uncle extended throughout Pakistan but rather because the claimant could not be expected to relocate the judge concluded that the appeal ought to be allowed on humanitarian protection grounds.
8. It has to be said that the judge did not consider Januzi, the principles contained in it or any other equivalent case law. As the grounds of application put it, the claimant is a 22 year old healthy adult male with no apparent disability, no dependants and no overt vulnerability. He has lived in Pakistan for the majority of his life. As Judge Grant-Hutchison put it in her granting of permission to appeal – repeating what is said in the grounds of application - no reasons are given by the judge as to why the claimant could not find employment in another city or why members of his family cannot assist him. Furthermore, he has had the confidence to live, study and presumably the willingness to find work in an alien country.
9. In these circumstances I have no hesitation in concluding that the decision of the judge in relation to his findings on internal relocation is perverse and irrational and amounts to a material error in law. He gives no reasons why the claimant could not reasonably be expected to live in another city – which he has done successfully in the United Kingdom. If he has been able, as was submitted, to establish a network of people in the UK then there would appear to be no good reason why he could not establish a similar network in one of the cities in Pakistan.
10. I adopt the approach in Januzi that it would not be unreasonable to expect him to move to another city in Pakistan as was suggested by the Secretary of State. Again, as the grounds say, the judge completely failed to take into account the fact that the claimant was a healthy adult male with no dependants and no overt vulnerability. Given the judge’s reasoning is perverse, then the decision cannot stand and it must be set aside.
11. It is therefore necessary to remake the decision. I cannot see that any further fact-finding is necessary. No factors are put to me which might suggest that it would be unduly harsh to expect the claimant to relocate. In all the circumstances described above it would not be unduly harsh or unreasonable to expect the claimant to relocate in Pakistan where he is entirely familiar with its customs, culture, and language (he speaks Urdu) and where he still has close family.

Notice of Decision
12. The making of the decision of the First-tier Tribunal did involve the making of an error on a point of law.
13. I set aside the decision. I remake it.
14. The appeal of the claimant, Mr Faisal Ali, is dismissed.
15. No anonymity direction is required.

Signed JG Macdonald Date 24th April 2017

Deputy Upper Tribunal Judge J G Macdonald