Tribunal decisions

The decision

IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM
CHAMBER
Case No: UI-2024-005135

First-tier Tribunal No: PA/67711/2023

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Decision & Reasons Issued:
On the 09 April 2025

Before

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE MANDALIA

Between

Secretary of State for the Home Department
Appellant
and

ZN
(ANONYMITY DIRECTION MADE)
Respondent

Representation
For the Appellant: Ms S Simbi, Senior Home Office Presenting Officer
For the Respondent: ZN in person (assisted by a Tribunal Appointed interpreter)

Heard at Birmingham Civil Justice Centre on 4 April 2025
Decision and Reasons
Pursuant to rule 14 of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008, the respondent is granted anonymity. No-one shall publish or reveal any information, including the name or address of the respondent, likely to lead members of the public to identify the respondent. Failure to comply with this order could amount to a contempt of court.
Introduction
1. The appellant in the appeal before me is the Secretary of State for the Home Department (“SSHD”) and the respondent to this appeal is ZN However, for ease of reference, in the course of this decision, hereafter, I adopt the parties’ status as it was before the FtT. I refer to ZN as the appellant, and the Secretary of State as the respondent.
2. The appellant is a national of Morocco. Her claim for international protection was refused by the respondent for reasons set out in a decision dated 30 November 2023. Her appeal against that decision was dismissed by First-tier Tribunal (“FtT”) Judge Feeney (“the judge”) ‘on asylum grounds’ for reasons set out in a decision dated 30 September 2024. However, the judge allowed the appeal on ‘humanitarian protection grounds’ and on ‘human rights grounds’. The appellant has not challenged the decision to dismiss her appeal on ‘asylum grounds’. Neither has the respondent challenged the decision to allow the appeal on ‘human rights grounds’.
3. The respondent claims the judge has failed to give any or any adequate reasons for her conclusion that the appeal is allowed on ‘humanitarian protection grounds’. It is said that the judge has failed to provide adequate reasons for finding that the appellant has established that her circumstances, or the overall situation in Morocco, are such that she can benefit from a grant of humanitarian protection. The respondent claims the objective evidence demonstrates there is no armed conflict or indiscriminate violence in Morocco, which is a popular tourist destination.
4. Permission to appeal to the Upper Tribunal was granted by FtT Judge Rodger on 6 November 2024.
The Hearing of the Appeal Before Me
5. The appellant attended the hearing before me and was accompanied by her daughter. She was assisted throughout by an Arabic interpreter arranged by the Tribunal.
6. I invited Ms Simbi to address me, in particular, as to whether any error of law in the decision of the FtT on the grounds relied upon by the respondent is material to the outcome of the appeal. Ms Simbi accepted, quite rightly in my judgement, that the judge found the appellant has a well founded fear of persecution / serious harm in Morocco. The judge was satisfied that the appellant will not have the benefit of state protection and was satisfied that the appellant cannot reasonably relocate. The appeal was dismissed on ‘asylum grounds’ because the judge was not satisfied that the appellant has established that she is a member of a particular social group. Ms Simbi accepts, again quite rightly in my judgment, that where a person does not meet the criteria for the grant of refugee status they will be considered for humanitarian protection. She accepted, quite properly, that although the judge did not set out any reasons for allowing the appeal on humanitarian protection grounds, given the findings made, the appellant had established that she would face a real risk of suffering serious harm and is unable to avail herself of protection.
Decision
7. The judge plainly considered the claim for international protection under the Refugee Convention. The claim made by the appellant was summarised in paragraph [17] of the decision. For the reasons set out at paragraphs [18] to [29], the judge was satisfied that the appellant has a well founded fear of persecution stroke serious harm in Morocco. She accepted that some aspects of the appellant's account are implausible, but was not satisfied that was sufficient to undermine the core of the appellant’s account. The judge found the appellant and her daughter to be credible witnesses. For reasons set out in paragraphs [30] to [37], the judge accepted the appellant will not have the benefit of sufficient state protection. She accepted the evidence of the appellant and her daughter regarding the familial connections the perpetrators have to the police. For the reasons set out at paragraphs [38] to [43], the judge found that the appellant cannot reasonably relocate. None of those findings made by the judge are challenged by the respondent.
8. I am satisfied that the respondent has established that the judge failed to set out her reasons for allowing the appeal on humanitarian protection grounds. The question for me is whether that error is material to the outcome of the appeal.
9. Paragraph 339C of the immigration rules provides for the grant of humanitarian protection if the respondent is satisfied, inter alia, that the applicant is not a refugee within the meaning of Article 1 of the 1951 Refugee Convention, and importantly, substantial grounds have been shown for believing that the asylum applicant concerned, if returned to the country of origin, would face a real risk of suffering serious harm and is unable, or, owing to such risk, unwilling to avail themselves of the protection of that country. Paragraph 339CA of the immigration rules confirm that ‘serious harm consists of’ inter alia, unlawful killing and torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment of a person in the country of origin.
10. The judge dismissed the appeal on ‘asylum grounds’ solely because the appellant had not established that she is a member of a particular social group. The appellant did not therefore meet the criteria for a grant of refugee status. The applicant made her claim for asylum on 13 August 2021 and, although not articulated, it is in my judgment clear that on the unchallenged findings made by the judge was satisfied that the material facts accepted give rise to a real risk of serious harm upon return to Morocco. That much is clear from paragraph [29] of the decision. The judge said:
“… I found the appellant and her daughter to be credible witnesses and I accept their evidence. I am satisfied that the appellant has a well founded fear of persecution / serious harm in Morocco.” (my emphasis)
11. The ‘serious harm’ the appellant would be exposed to, is for all intents and purposes based upon her reasons for claiming asylum. Any error, as Ms Simbi accepted, was therefore immaterial to the outcome of the appeal.
Notice of Decision
12. The respondent’s appeal to the Upper Tribunal is dismissed.
13. The decision of First-tier Tribunal Judge Feeney stands.

V. Mandalia
Upper Tribunal Judge Mandalia

Judge of the Upper Tribunal
Immigration and Asylum Chamber

4 April 2025