Tribunal decisions

The decision

Upper Tribunal
(Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: PA/08603/2018

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Heard at Glasgow Decision Promulgated
On 8 February 2019 On 19 March 2019

Before

DEPUTY JUDGE UPPER TRIBUNAL FARRELLY

Between

MR.SLA
(ANONYMITY DIRECTION MADE)
Appellant

And

SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent

Representation:

For the Appellant: Latta and Co. Solicitors
For the Respondent: Mr A Govan, Presenting Officer

Introduction

1. The appellant is a Kurdish national of Iraq from Sulaymaniyah.

2. There are two strands to his claim for protection which connect with each other.

3. Firstly, he says as is customary, his sister married his wife's brother. Her marriage did not work out and she sought a divorce. His wife's family in turn felt reparation was due from the appellant and to this end took his wife and their child back to her family home. Consequently, he claims to fear them

4. One night, in his wife's absence, he was eavesdropping on a neighbour's telephone conversation. The neighbour was one house away from his. The conversation related to a drug deal. His own phone rang and he believes the neighbour then was aware of his presence. In any event, he decided to inform the authorities about what he had heard and this resulted in his neighbour and others being arrested.

5. Following this his neighbour's father came to his home and tried to kill him, shooting through a window. The appellant then moved to live at his father's which was nearby. There were two more incidents. Fearful of what might happen he decided to leave. His wife was able to join him and having passed through several countries they arrived in the United Kingdom. Whilst in the United Kingdom his wife gave birth to their 2nd child. In support of his claim he produced what purported to be a letter of commendation and a press release of the arrest of drug offenders.

6. His claim was refused on credibility grounds. If there were any truth to the claim then the respondent said he could reasonably relocate within the IKR to avoid what was seen as localised difficulties. The refusal letter goes on to consider the practicalities of return and the need for a CSI D document. The refusal said the appellant had provided no evidence he had made a genuine attempt to obtain evidence of his identity or documentation. It felt he could replace his documentation through the Iraqi Embassy in London. He also could grant authority to a lawyer in his home country to obtain a replacement.

The First-tier Tribunal

7. His appeal was heard by First-tier Tribunal Judge David C Clapham SSC and was dismissed. At paragraph 9 to 66 judge sets out in detail what took place at the hearing. The judge did not find the appellant credible. The judge did not accept the appellant had reported a drug crime as claimed. Reasons are given at paragraph 68 to 76. Whilst the judge accepted there may have been differences between the appellant and his father-in-law he did not find he was at risk of any honour killing. At paragraph 77 the judge acknowledged the appellant would need documentation to be returned but pointed out the papers included copy of his marriage certificate and this would be a starting point to allow the relevant authorities to trace the necessary details.

8. Permission to appeal was granted on the basis it was arguable that the judge erred in law in drawing an adverse inference from the appellant not being named in the press release he had submitted. The grounds argue that the press release was credible and was directed towards the arrest rather than naming an informer. To have done so could place them in danger. A second-ground was that the judge arguably erred in law in relation to the appellant's ability to obtain documentation and the absence of reference to relevant case law.

9. At hearing the appellant's representative referred me to the grounds for which permission had been sought. In particular, emphasis was placed upon the question of documentation and his return.

10. In response, the presenting officer contended that adequate reasons for rejecting the claim were given at paragraph 68 through to 71. At paragraph 72 the judge had referred to the appellant's claim of receiving a threatening text message but questioned how his number could have been obtained. Regarding the press release the judge evaluated this in the context of all the evidence.

Conclusions

11. The detailed decision of First-tier Tribunal Judge David C Clapham SSC demonstrates the careful consideration he gave to the claim. The evidence was recorded in detail. He then gave numerous reasons for rejecting the claim. The grounds contend that the judge did not find the claim plausible but did not give reasons. An example is the comment that the judge found implausible a drug dealer would carry out a compromising conversation as described. It was for the judge to assess the claim and he has given numerous sustainable reasons for not finding it credible. I can find no material error disclosed.

12. Regarding documentation, it is correct to send judge does not deal with this in great detail. However, in the circumstance there was no need to do so. The background to the documentation issue and the case law was set out in detail in the refusal letter and it was unnecessary in the circumstance for the judge to repeat this. At para 17 the judge records that the appellant and his wife had their own passports but these were taken by the smuggler engaged.

13. The decision reflects that the emphasis was upon the determination of the underlying claim rather than documentation. The appellant's representative accepted that the case turned upon the appellant's credibility. Paragraph 59 refers to the presenting officer in submissions stating that the appellant's family could assist with documentation. The appeal bundle would have contained the appellant screening and substantive interview as well as his statement.

14. At paragraph 1.8 of his screening he confirmed they had travelled on their own passports but claimed the agent then took them in Turkey. He is college-educated. At 6.3 he said he had a solicitor in Iraq who would be able to send documentation. In his substantive interview he said that he had family in Iraq including his parents, 3 sisters and 2 brothers as well as extended family members. He confirmed he was in contact with them. At question 52 he said he had a civil status ID card when in Iraq. He also confirmed he had a passport. He had not made any effort to obtain replacement documentation. He simply said his physical presence was necessary. He claimed not to know the details of the family registration book. However, he was able to provide details of his marriage. AAH (Iraqi Kurds- Internal relocation) Iraq CG [2018] UKUT 00212 pointed out that with a marriage certificate the process of obtaining replacement documentation should be straightforward. All of this material was in front of the judge.

15. Consequently, the comments made at paragraph 77 were appropriate. The onus is on the person to show why they cannot reasonably obtain necessary documentation. Against any such claim, he had not been found credible on his substantive claim and had not made led any evidence about unsuccessful attempts to obtain documentation.

Decision

I find no material error of law established. Consequently, the decision of First-tier Tribunal Judge David C Clapham SSC dismissing the appeal shall stand.

DEPUTY JUDGE UPPER TRIBUNAL FARRELLY