Tribunal decisions

The decision

IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM
CHAMBER
Case No: UI-2024-004600

First-tier Tribunal No: PA/01353/2024

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Decision & Reasons Issued:
On 15 May 2025

Before

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE MANDALIA
and
DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE DOYLE

Between

TK
(ANONYMITY DIRECTION MADE)
Appellants
and

Secretary of State for the Home Department
Respondent
Representation
For the Appellant: Mr A Bradley, A J Bradley & Co Solicitors
For the Respondent: Mr A Mullen, Senior Home Office Presenting Officer

Heard at Edinburgh Tribunal Centre on 14 May 2025

Pursuant to rule 14 of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008, the appellant 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. Failure to comply with this order could amount to a contempt of court.

Decision and Reasons
Introduction
1. The appellant is a national of Namibia. Her appeal against the respondent’s decision dated 22 February 2024 to refuse her claim for international protection was dismissed by First-tier Tribunal Judge Parkes (“the Judge”) for reasons set out in a decision promulgated on 21 August 2024.
2. Permission to appeal to the Upper Tribunal was granted by Upper Tribunal Judge Ruddick on 24 October 2024. She noted that it is just arguable that the judge may have been mistaken in noting at [20], that the appellant had shown original documents ‘to the camera’ during her substantive interview. She said that it will be for the appellant to establish the materiality of any error given the judge nonetheless accepted the documents as reliable and gave detailed reasons for finding that sufficiency of protection and internal relocation would be available to the appellant on return.
The Hearing of the Appeal before Us
3. The appellant’s claim for international protection was made on 4 December 2022. At the outset of the hearing although not raised by either party, we referred the parties to paragraphs [2] and [3] of the decision of the FtT. The judge set out the legal framework and referred to ‘The Refugee or Person in Need of International Protection (Qualification) Regulations 2006 (the Regulations)’. As the claim was made after 28 June 2022, the Nationality and Borders Act 2022 (“the 2022 Act”) applied and by operation of section 30(4) of the 2022 Act the Regulations were revoked. We invited the parties to consider whether the erroneous reference to the Regulations was material to the outcome of the appeal.
4. Having had an opportunity to consider the matter, Mr Bradley and Mr Mullen agreed that the reference to the Regulations, although erroneous, was not material to the outcome of the appeal. The judge addressed the appellant’s claim and accepted the appellant was subject to an attempt by her family to force her marriage to her uncle, that she stayed with him for a while and was maltreated. The judge accepted the appellant fears return to Namibia but found that that fear is not objectively justified. He found that state protection is available to the appellant as is the option of internal relocation. He also found the appellant would have access to medical treatment.
5. In addition, having reflected upon the grounds of appeal and what was said by Upper Tribunal Judge Ruddick when permission to appeal was granted, Mr Bradley also now accepts that he cannot maintain that the judge erred in his assessment of the documents relied upon by the appellant. He quite properly in our judgment accepts that in interview (Q.111), the appellant said the document shown to the camera was an ‘original’. It was therefore open to the judge to say as he did at paragraph [20]:
“In the interview it appears that the Appellant had the original documents which were shown to the camera. That is different from having them sent by Whatsapp and there was no reference to their being provided that way in the interview.”
6. Mr Bradley candidly accepts the appeal to the Upper Tribunal cannot therefore succeed. In the circumstances we did not call upon Mr Mullen to respond.
7. We are satisfied that the concessions made by Mr Bradley are appropriate and quite properly made. It follows that there is no material error of law in the decision of the FtT and the appeal before us is dismissed.
Notice of Decision
8. The appeal to the Upper Tribunal is dismissed.
9. The decision of First-tier Tribunal Judge Parkes promulgated on 21 August 2024 stands.

V. Mandalia
Upper Tribunal Judge Mandalia

Judge of the Upper Tribunal
Immigration and Asylum Chamber

14 May 2025