Tribunal decisions

The decision

IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM
CHAMBER
Case No: UI-2024-001384

First-tier Tribunal No: PA/54848/2023
IA/00031/2024

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Decision & Reasons Issued:
On 21 May 2025

Before

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE MANDALIA
and
DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE FARRELLY

Between

F S
(ANONYMITY DIRECTION MADE)
Appellant
and

Secretary of State for the Home Department
Respondent

Representation
For the Appellant: Ms Jordanna Blockley instructed by JustRight Scotland
For the Respondent: Mr Andrew Mullen, Senior Home Office Presenting Officer

Heard at Edinburgh Tribunal Centre on 30 January 2025

Decision and Reasons
Introduction
1. The appellant claimed protection in April 2019. She said she was Somalian, born in December 2003 and from the minority Bajuni clan. She said she had lived on the island of Chula with her family.

2. The appellant claims that when she was around six or seven years of age majority clan members associated with al Shabab came to her village, attacking the inhabitants. They killed her mother and raped her sister .She escaped by hiding under a bed. She subsequently left the island. She said she did not know where she was taken to but later said it might have been Kenya. She said she was afraid to return to Somalia because of her experiences and fear of the majority clans.

3. The respondent refused her claim on the 29th of July 2023 on the basis it was false and she was a Tanzanian national. Biometric checks matched visa applications made in 2013 and 2019 in the name of F S, a Tanzanian national born in December 2003.

4. The appellant maintained her original claim, suggesting the passport and visa applications were not genuine but had been arranged by an agent.

5. The respondent carried out checks on the documentation in the visa applications. The Tanzanian passport provided was found to be genuine. Country information indicated that to obtain a Tanzanian passport supporting documentation was required, including a birth certificate of the applicant and their parents as well as a national identity card. The 2019 application provided details of employment in Tanzania with a travel company.

6. Her asylum interview was conducted in Swahili-Kibajuni. Whilst this is spoken by the Bajuni in Somalia it is also spoken in Tanzania, Kenya, the Democratic Republic of Congo and various other African countries. The 2019 visa application stated she was married and had a child, born in February 2017. The application named her parents, indicating they were Tanzanian.

7. The respondent commissioned a Sprakab report, dated 21 January 2022. Her linguistic background was found to a high degree of certainty to be Kenyan and very unlikely to be Somali.

8. Whilst in the United Kingdom the appellant gave birth to her son on 3 November 2022. For the appeal, her representatives obtained medical records and letters from her obstetrician and a family nurse and midwife . They were of the opinion she presented as around the age of 19 at the time of giving birth and their impression was that this was the first time she had had a child, thus contradicting the information in the visa application.

The First tier

9. Her appeal was heard before First tier Tribunal Judge Gillespie (“the judge”) at Glasgow on the 26th of January 2023 and was dismissed. Referring to the Sprakab report he acknowledged language analysis can be a contentious subject but noted the absence of evidence to counter it. He attached weight to it, finding it added to the doubt as to the credibility of her claim. The judge concluded she was a Tanzanian national and not Somali , she had not lived on the island of Chula nor was she a member of a minority clan. Consequently, her claim was dismissed.

Permission to appeal

10. Permission to appeal to the Upper Tribunal was granted on a renewed application by Upper Tribunal Judge Gleeson. This was on the sole basis that arguably the judge had given inadequate reasons for relying on the Sprakab report in concluding she is Tanzanian.

Consideration

11. We have borne in mind throughout that it is now well established that the Upper Tribunal is not entitled to find an error of law simply because it does not agree with the decision, or because the Tribunal thinks the decision could be more clearly expressed or another judge can produce a better one. Baroness Hale put it in this way in AH (Sudan) v SSHD [2007] UKHL 49 [2008] 1 AC 678), at [30]:
"Appellate courts should not rush to find such misdirection simply because they might have reached a different conclusion on the facts or expressed themselves differently."
12. In Volpi v Volpi [2022] EWCA Civ 464, [2022] 4 W.L.R. 48, in dismissing an appeal against findings of fact, the Court of Appeal emphasised that it was not for an appeal court to come to an independent conclusion as a result of its own consideration of the evidence; the question is whether the trial judge's conclusion was rationally insupportable.
13. The judge correctly identified the central issue in the appeal was the appellant’s identity and country of origin. He identifies the appellant’s claim that she is YN, born in December 2003 from Chula, Somalia whereas the respondent believe she is FG ,born in September 1995 and a national of Tanzania. The judge clearly stated the primary issue in contention. He refers to the reason why the respondent takes that view, citing the biometric match to two applications for entry clearance made in Durban using a Tanzanian passport considered genuine. He records the appellant’s contention as being that the passport was obtained by an agent and she had not been involved in the visa applications. The judge noted that on her account she entered the United Kingdom when she was 15 years and three months old whereas from the Tanzanian passport she would have been 23 years and seven months.

14. At para 12 of his determination, the judge noted she did not speak Somali but spoke Swahili. At para 13 he referred to the Sprakab report concluding she spoke Swahili as a native. He referred to the report concluding her linguistic background was to a high degree of certainty that of the Kenyan coast and it was very unlikely she was Somali. The report acknowledged that Bajuni is a Swahili dialect typically spoken on the Bajuni islands. However, whilst she said a few words in Kibajuni her basic dialect was Swahili, as spoken along the coast of Kenya.

15. At paragraph 17 of the determination the judge refers to the appellant's account that several days after the attack arrangements were made by her sister with an agent for the appellant to leave the island. She refers to travelling by boat to a place she believed was called Isli. She said she remained there for several years until arrangements could be made for her travel to the United Kingdom.

16. In her asylum interview the Sprakab conclusions were put to the appellant and she suggested this might be because she had lived for a time in Kenya. This contradicted her earlier account she did not know where she was after leaving Chula. For her substantive interview her representative wrote to the Home Office confirming her claim was that she did know what country she was in but it might have been Kenya. At paragraph 24 the judge commented on her suggestion she might have acquired linguistic features through for a time other African countries, possibly Kenya .He commented this would not explain why she spoke Swahili as a native and used only a few Kibajuni words.

17. At paragraph 26 the judge had acknowledged there could be shortcomings with language analysis but commented that the appellant had not sought to obtain a rebuttal report.

18. The judge at para 28 went on to refer to the presenting officer’s submissions about the passport and documentation used in the visa applications ,as well as the evidence of the gynaecologist and obstetrician in Glasgow. From the determination the judge clearly adopted a balanced approach to these points. The judge concluded that the appellant's passport strongly supported the respondent’s assertion that she was from Tanzania.

19. We have been referred to the Country guidance given in the Presidential led decision of ASA (Bajuni: correct approach, Sprakab reports [2022]UKUT 00222. The issue arising is pertinent to the present appeal. The issue there was whether or not the appellant spoke Swahili with Bajuni features consistent with their claim to be from Chula. It guided that the decision maker should take a holistic approach, to include knowledge of life in Somalia and of the Bajuni, including their customs and occupations. Knowledge of Somali and Bajuni were relevant but would vary dependent upon the persons history.

20. The skeleton argument for the appellant said that the Sprakab report had indicated the appellant was from the Kenyan coast and this did not support the respondent’s position that she was from Tanzania. It states there was nothing linguistically to link the appellant to Tanzania. However, there was other material to do this, for instance, the passport produced and the visa applications and supporting evidence all of which linked her to Tanzania. This would be in line with the holistic approach advocated.

21. In submissions, Ms Blockley made the point that a lot of Bajuni were displaced to Kenya. On the appellant’s claim she was displaced but did not know precisely where. She said that Kibajuni was not spoken in Kenya or Tanzania. She submitted this was consistent with the appellant’s use of only a few words of Kibajuni and argued that the Sprakab report in this regard corroborated her account and was not damaging to her credibility.

22. In response, Mr Mullen said that the report had to be looked at in the round along with the other evidence which is precisely what the judge did. The judge referred to the fact she was the holder of a Tanzanian passport and mentioned the two visa applications. He submitted there was no error in the approach of the judge.

23. We find no material error of law in the decision of FTT Judge Gillespie. He prepared a carefully drafted and thoughtful determination which identified the issue and correctly dealt with the relevant evidence. He addressed the Sprakab report and did not rely upon it solely but also looked at matters in the round, including the Tanzanian passport produced and the visa applications. Ample reasons were given by the judge for dismissing the appeal.It follows that we are satisfied that there is no material error of law in the decision of the Ft, and we dismiss the appeal.
Notice of Decision
1. The appeal to the Upper Tribunal is dismissed.
2. The decision of First tier Tribunal Judge Gillespie at Glasgow on 26 January 2023 dismissing the appeal stands.

F J Farrelly
Deputy Upper Tribunal Judge Farrelly

The Upper Tribunal
Immigration and Asylum Chamber