Tribunal decisions

The decision

IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER
Case No: UI-2024-005377

First-tier Tribunal No: PA/64244/2023

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Decision & Reasons Issued:

8th April 2025

Before

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE LANE
DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE WILLIAMS

Between

SD
(ANONYMITY ORDER MADE)
Appellant
and

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent

Representation:
For the Appellant: The Appellant in person
For the Respondent: Dr S Ibisi, Senior Home Office Presenting Officer

Heard at Manchester Civil Justice Centre on 28 March 2025

Order Regarding Anonymity

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
1. The appellant appeals with the permission of Upper Tribunal Judge McWilliam against the decision of First-tier Tribunal Judge Alis (‘the Judge’), who by a decision promulgated on 27th August 2024, dismissed the appellant’s appeal against the respondent’s refusal of his claim for international protection.
Background
2. The appellant is a national of the Republic of Côte d'Ivoire who entered the United Kingdom on 2nd February 2019 and made a protection claim on the same day. The protection claim was advanced on the basis of the appellant’s fear of the police and government. In summary, the appellant claimed to have been approached by soldiers between 2010 and 2012 and invited to fight against the regime of President Laurent Gbagbo.
3. The appellant claims to have initially took security positions against the Gbagbo forces, until he was supplied with weapons by the rebel forces. The appellant’s refusal to fight led to him being called a ‘traitor’ and he was threatened with death. The military are said to have attended the appellant’s home and his brother was killed for failing to disclose his whereabouts. The appellant feared return to Côte d'Ivoire because he would be killed by the police and government for his refusal to fight against the Gbagbo forces.
4. The claim was refused by the respondent on 27th November 2023. She did not accept the credibility of the appellant’s account due to internal inconsistencies in the account, the fact the appellant was permitted to leave Côte d'Ivoire, and because the appellant had not explained how the army would know of his return to the country. The respondent further considered the appellant’s failure to claim asylum in safe countries was a factor undermining his credibility.
5. The respondent considered the appellant’s entitlement to leave under paragraph 276ADE, but did not conclude there were very significant obstacles to his integration into Côte d'Ivoire. It was further said there were no exceptional circumstances raised by the appellant.
The appeal to the First-tier Tribunal
6. The appellant exercised his right of appeal to the First-tier Tribunal. His appeal came before the Judge at the Manchester (Piccadilly) Hearing Centre on 22nd August 2024. Counsel appeared for the appellant, and a Presenting Officer for the respondent. The Judge heard evidence from the appellant and submissions from both representatives.
7. The Judge promulgated his reserved decision on 27th August 2024. The Judge recited the appellant’s evidence (§§ 9-18), the respondent’s submissions (§§ 19-24), and the appellant’s submissions (§§ 25-29). The Judge provided his conclusions on the protection claim, i.e. that he did not accept the appellant’s account and that there was no evidence the authorities were targeting people who did not support them some 13 years previously.
8. The Judge further concluded the appellant was not entitled to humanitarian protection or leave on Article 3 grounds. The Judge further found ‘neither paragraph 276ADE or Article 8 is engaged in this appeal. The Appellant is fit and well and in the absence of any medical evidence can return to his home country and rebuild his life’.
The appeal to the Upper Tribunal
9. The initial grounds of appeal settled asserted the Judge had given inadequate reasons for rejecting the appellant’s protection claim, and secondly that the Judge had provided inadequate reasons for finding the appellant could not succeed under 276ADE. Permission was refused on both grounds by First-tier Tribunal Judge Cox on 4th November 2024.
10. The appellant renewed his application for permission to appeal to the Upper Tribunal, although the renewed grounds focused on the refusal of permission as opposed to the substantive decision. Nonetheless, Upper Tribunal Judge McWilliam granted permission, albeit restricting the grant only to the Judge’s decision under Article 8, finding it ‘arguable that the Judge did not adequately reason the decision under Article 8 outside the immigration rules’.
The hearing before the Upper Tribunal
11. Prior to the hearing, an email was sent to the Upper Tribunal requesting an adjournment of the hearing. The email, from a Support Worker assisting the appellant, sought an adjournment on the basis the appellant was having difficulties with the solicitors on record, and that he needed further time to prepare the appeal. The application was refused by an Upper Tribunal Lawyer, as well as by Upper Tribunal Judge Lane, although it was indicated the appellant could renew the application at the hearing.
12. The appellant attended the hearing in person. Prior to the hearing, Ms Sheikh, a Tribunal Clerk had spoken to the appellant at our request to ask whether he had a representative and to confirm his address. Ms Sheikh told us that the appellant had spoken to her in English and had understood her questions.
13. At the outset of the hearing following introductions, and in order to ensure that the hearing would be fair, we told the appellant and the respondent’s representative about our conversation with Ms Sheikh. We asked the appellant whether his solicitor was attending. The appellant replied saying ‘only French’. We repeated the question, and he replied again saying ‘only French’. We indicated to the appellant that we were aware of his conversation with Ms Sheikh prior to the hearing, and that it was unclear to us why he was now unable to understand the same question she had asked him.
14. We rose briefly to consider how to proceed. We determined we would continue to determine the appeal for a number of reasons. First, it is our clear finding that the appellant understands English, as he had communicated with Ms Sheikh prior to the hearing starting with no difficulties. We found his sudden inability to respond to the same questions he had answered only ten minutes earlier was feigned in order to obtain an adjournment, which had already been refused on two occasions. Secondly, we noted that the appellant’s witness statement provided for the First-tier Tribunal hearing did not bear a statement indicating an interpreter was involved in taking that statement. Thirdly, no interpreter had been requested for the hearing, and finally, as we indicated to the appellant at the hearing, detailed grounds had been settled on his behalf, and there was in reality no improvement he could make upon them. Having all these matters in mind, we determined that the error of law hearing would be a fair hearing notwithstanding the appellant’s reluctance to make any oral submissions.
15. We heard submissions from Dr Ibisi who invited us to find the sole ground of challenge was not made out. The appellant opted not to respond. At the end of the hearing, we reserved our decision which we now give with reasons.
Analysis
16. The sole ground of challenge is that the Judge did not provide adequate reasons for his finding that the appellant did not meet the requirements of 276ADE, or that Article 8 was engaged. We observe that the Judge’s findings on this point are brief, however Dr Ibisi invited us to consider whether that was because the submissions made before the Judge were similarly brief.
17. Looking first at the appellant’s skeleton argument provided to the Judge, there was limited mention to his private life, and no mention at all of any factors (the protection claim aside), which would constitute ‘very significant obstacles’ to the appellant’s integration into Côte d'Ivoire. There is a mention of ‘severe mental and physical health issues, supported by medical evidence’ which are said to ‘add weight to his claim under Article 8 considerations’.
18. This submission is incorrect, as there was no medical evidence before the Judge. The only subjective material provided by the appellant was his witness statement. There were no medical records supporting the claim that the appellant had ‘severe mental and physical health issues’. The reference to poor health in his witness statement was in relation to having ‘mental stress and weak memory’, which is not identified as an issue inhibiting his integration, but rather a factor to be considered in the credibility assessment.
19. The submissions made by Mr Moksud, who represented the appellant before the Judge, are recorded in the decision. What is recorded (§29) is that ‘Mr Moksud submitted paragraph 276ADE HC 395 applied as there would be very significant obstacles to his return’. We note that the Rules are looking at the issue of integration and not return, but in any event, it is clear that no particular obstacles were particularised by Counsel for the appellant.
20. The Judge had concluded that the appellant was not ‘personally threatened or was wanted by the authorities’ (§43). It is difficult to identify any other factors which were relied on before the Judge such as would enable the appellant to succeed in a claim under 276ADE. In our judgement, the appellant was represented by experienced Counsel, who presented the appellant’s case according to the evidence provided. We do not criticise the Judge for the brevity of his reasoning in these circumstances.
21. As far as the finding that Article 8 was not engaged, we have struggled to identify any evidence before the Judge of the appellant having established a private life capable of Article 8 protection. The only evidence before the Judge was the appellant’s witness statement, and we remind ourselves the Judge had identified a number of credibility issues with the appellant’s evidence already.
22. Whilst the appellant refers to his integration into the United Kingdom, and the many friends he had made, there was no evidence of this before the Judge. There were no witness statements supporting these friendships and so we do not find the Judge erred in this respect. He was without any evidence of private life which had the capability of outweighing the public interest in the appellant’s removal.
23. We do not find the appellant has established a material error of law within the decision under challenge, and we accordingly dismiss his appeal.

Notice of Decision
The appeal to the Upper Tribunal is dismissed. The decision of First-tier Tribunal Judge Alis, dismissing the appeal on all grounds, is upheld.

CJ Williams

Deputy Judge of the Upper Tribunal
Immigration and Asylum Chamber

4 April 2025