Tribunal decisions

The decision

IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER
Case No: UI-2024-001610

First-tier Tribunal No: PA/55439/2023

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Decision & Reasons Issued:
On the 17 March 2025

Before

DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE ALIS

Between

GA
(ANONYMITY ORDER MADE)
Appellant
and

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent

Representation:

For the Appellant: Mr Forrest, Counsel
For the Respondent: Mr McVeety, Senior Home Office Presenting Officer

Heard at Field House on 26 February 2025

Order Regarding Anonymity

Pursuant to rule 14 of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008, [the appellant] (and/or any member of his family, expert, witness or other person the Tribunal considers should not be identified) is granted anonymity.

No-one shall publish or reveal any information, including the name or address of the appellant, likely to lead members of the public to identify the appellant (and/or other person). Failure to comply with this order could amount to a contempt of court.

DECISION AND REASONS
1. The Appellant, an Ethiopian national aged 41 years of age, claimed to have arrived in this country in May 2020 and claimed asylum on 29 May 2020. His claim was refused by the Respondent on 20 December 2021 and his appeal was dismissed by a previous Tribunal on 16 June 2022. His appeal rights were deemed exhausted on 2 August 2022 after permission to appeal the first-tier decision was refused.
2. The Appellant lodged further grounds on 1 March 2023 which were refused by the Respondent on 11 August 2023. The Appellant appealed this decision and his appeal came before the First-tier Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the FTT) which in a decision promulgated on 24 February 2024 dismissed the Appellant’s appeal.
3. Permission to appeal was initially refused but Upper Tribunal Judge Bulpitt granted permission to appeal on 31 July 2024 finding it arguable there had been a material error because:
“The complaint in the grounds that the Judge has given inadequate reasoning for his decision is arguable. In particular it is arguable that, despite referring to the document at [14] the Judge has failed to adequately explain what view he took of the Court document adduced. It is further arguable that the Judge’s comments at [19] that “I have considered the points made by the respondent and find they are valid” and at [23] that “I find very little information that was not before the previous tribunal” are inadequate to enable the Appellant to understand why he has lost his appeal. There are also parts of the decision which it is arguable are unintelligible (e.g. the last sentence of [20])”
SUBMISSIONS
4. Mr Forrest adopted the grounds of appeal and submitted the Tribunal did not consider crucial evidence which was fresh evidence (Paragraph 3.1 of amended grounds-page 25). Whilst the starting point was the original Tribunal decision facts occurring after that hearing should be considered where there was a right of appeal. The new evidence was threefold namely (a) the court order (page 215), a photograph of the Appellant demonstrating (page 200) and country evidence about the authorities being aware of a person’s opposition (pages 80-108 and 115 to 119). Looking at the decision (paragraphs 13-23) Mr Forrest submitted the FTT erred in all three respects.
5. At paragraph [14] the FTT considered the court order which had been submitted by the representatives (see page 205). The letter from the representatives suggests the court order date 14/10/2014 translated to 21 June 2022 in the Gregorian calendar. The FTT referred to the date of the order as being 14 October 2014 and Mr Forrest submitted that meant we could not be sure the FTT fully appreciated the evidence.
6. As regards the photograph the FTT said in paragraph [17] there was no evidence the authorities monitored protests but it was unclear when reading the decision whether the FTT was accepting this was a new photograph or one before the previous FTT.
7. The country evidence became relevant because if the FTT said there was no evidence before it of the authorities monitoring the protests then this was wrong because the report, albeit it from February 2017, suggested there was monitoring.
8. The FTT had to show he had analysed, engaged and understood the new evidence and this had not been done.
9. Mr McVeety opposed the application. This was a Devaseelan case. The Appellant relied on the court order and photograph as new evidence and the Respondent considered the new evidence in the refusal letter (paragraphs 19 and 20) highlighting issues with the documents and stated the evidence was vague and unreliable. This was also what the previous Tribunal said about similar evidence. The Appellant had failed to address the criticisms and Mr McVeety submitted the FTT could therefore accept the points made in the decision letter and did not need to go beyond that when previous documents had been rejected as unreliable.
10. With regard to the sur place activities Mr McVeety submitted the Appellant had to show the authorities monitored protests in this country and then show how the authorities could identify people who were no previously known to them. The country evidence referred to known activists only and Mr McVeety submitted there was no evidence the authorities would therefore be monitoring the Appellant. Mr McVeety submitted the FTT accepted that he attended protests but found it was insufficient to place him on the authority’s radar.
DISCUSSION AND FINDINGS
11. Having heard submissions from both parties I reserved my decision. For the reasons hereafter given I find there was no error in law.
12. In what was a short decision the FTT dismissed the Appellant’s appeal. Mr Forrest helpfully summarised why he believed there had been an error in law and McVeety argued to the contrary.
13. The thrust of the grounds of appeal concerned whether the FTT had demonstrated it had properly considered all the available evidence and considered whether the Appellant’s ongoing sur place activities would place him at risk of persecution.
14. The FTT’s consideration of the evidence was found between paragraphs [13] and [23]. Mr Forrest expressed some concern as to what evidence the FTT had considered. The FTT was fully aware this was a Devaseelan appeal and set out brief details of that previous appeal in paragraphs [3] and [4] of his decision. The FTT set out some of the findings including its finding that documentary evidence submitted previously was not reliable, he had not established his claim and that affiliation to the NMA party would not on its own give rise to Convention claim. The FTT recorded the panel accepted he had a limited involvement in politics in this country but his involvement was low level despite him attending a March in Glasgow in July 2020. The panel concluded he would not be at risk.
15. The new claim referred to further demonstrations together with letters from the ACUK and his wife and a court order dated 21 June 2022 (see paragraph [6] of the decision). The Respondent rejected his claim and made clear he did not have a significant role on the ACUK. The FTTJ identified deficiencies in the letter from the wife.
16. The FTT began his assessment of the evidence at paragraph [13] and referred to the previous findings. The FTT concluded there was nothing in the new evidence that required him to revisit those findings. The FTT accepted new evidence had been adduced (paragraph [14]) and whilst the date was wrongly referred to as “14 October 2014” as against 14/10/2014 (Ethiopian calendar) the fact remained the FTT was aware of the correct date as he had set this out correctly in paragraph [6] of its decision.
17. Mr Forrest argued we could not be sure the FTT fully appreciated the evidence but I am satisfied that the reference to 14 October 2014 was a typographical error and the FTT was fully aware of the date of the Order.
18. As to whether the FTT took this document into account I am satisfied that the FTT did. The FTT considered the court order in paragraph [14] and [15] and gave reasons why it did not accept the evidence was sufficient for it to depart from the original findings. The reasons provided in the decision were reasonable and do not demonstrate an error in law.
19. Mr Forrest further argued the letter from his wife had not been properly considered. However, the FTT did consider the document in paragraph [15] and [16] and again the reasons provided by the FTT for not attaching weight to it were open to it given the history of the matter.
20. Turning to the second element of the appeal (his political activity) this again was something considered previously and was also something that was a live issue before the FTT. The starting point was he was a low level offender as this was the finding made by the previous Tribunal. Both the Respondent and the FTT accepted the Appellant attended a march in July 2020 and the issue the FTT had to consider was whether his activities would have come to the attention of the Ethiopian authorities. Mr Forrest argued the FTT erred in his approach to this issue by not demonstrating he had considered evidence in the bundle.
21. Mr Forrest referred to country evidence which I have reviewed. The FTT considered the Appellant’s evidence about his activities and whilst it did not specifically refer to this in paragraph [23] the FTT did refer to having regard to the representative’s submissions which included reference to country evidence as well as other matters. Looking at the FTT’s decision it is clear that the FTT considered the position and any risk posed to him by the Ethiopian authorities. Mr McVeety referred the Tribunal to what was actually said in the Canadian Report (page 115) and whilst this report makes reference to people other than high profile people may be monitored the fact remains this report was seven years out of date by the time the FTT dealt with this appeal. The previous Tribunal considered the position in 2022 and there was no further country evidence that post-dated this hearing that supported the Appellant’s claim the authorities would be interested in him.
22. I am satisfied the FTT addressed all pertinent issues and no error of law was disclosed.
Notice of Decision
There is no error of law and the FTT’s decision stands.

SP ALIS

Judge of the Upper Tribunal
Immigration and Asylum Chamber

12/3/2025