Ahmed v Secretary of State for the Home Department

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
JudgeSir Stephen Richards
Judgment Date13 June 2016
Neutral Citation[2016] EWCA Civ 684
CourtCourt of Appeal (Civil Division)
Date13 June 2016
Docket NumberC5/2015/0011

[2016] EWCA Civ 684

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)

ON APPEAL FROM THE UPPER TRIBUNAL

(IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER)

Royal Courts of Justice

Strand

London, WC2A 2LL

Before:

Sir Stephen Richards

C5/2015/0011

Between:
Ahmed
Applicant
and
Secretary of State for the Home Department
Respondent

Mr S Karim (instructed by Hamlet Solicitors) appeared on behalf of the Applicant

The Respondent was not present and was not represented

(Approved by the Court)

Sir Stephen Richards
1

This case has been listed as JA (Bangladesh), but there is no reason for maintaining anonymity. The Applicant's name is Mr Jubel Ahmed.

2

The Applicant is a national of Bangladesh who was present in the United Kingdom unlawfully. He applied in October 2009 for leave to remain on Article 8 grounds. The application was refused by a decision letter dated 17 December 2009. Since the Applicant did not have leave at the time of his application, there was no right of appeal against that decision.

3

It was not until 3 July 2013 that he was served with notice of a decision to remove him. He had a right of appeal against that decision and he exercised the right. His appeal was dismissed by the First-tier Tribunal (the FTT). A further appeal was dismissed by the Upper Tribunal (the UT).

4

Permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal was refused by the UT and on the papers by Underhill LJ in this court. The Applicant renews his application for permission through Mr Karim of counsel, whose submissions have been commendably succinct and focused.

5

The first ground of appeal is to the effect that the FTT erred in law in relation to its credibility findings and that the UT was wrong to find otherwise. The specific contention, as advanced before the UT, is that the FTT judge erred in rejecting the evidence of the Applicant's uncle, a Mr Hoque, on the basis that it contradicted the Applicant's own evidence but without giving reasons for finding that there were contradictions. Mr Karim submits that reasons were completely absent from the FTT's decision.

6

At paragraph 16 of her determination the FTT judge said that she did not find the Applicant himself to be credible because his statements were glaringly at odds with his oral evidence at the hearing. She also found that his account of his arrival in this country lacked all credibility, being utterly implausible. None of that was challenged on appeal to the UT.

7

The FTT judge added that there was no evidence other than that of his uncle that the Applicant had been in the United Kingdom for nearly 14 years, as he said he had, and:

i. "I cannot accept Mr Hoque's evidence as reliable since it contradicts the evidence given in the Appellant's statement."

8

On the appeal to the UT, the UT judge described that particular conclusion as "somewhat brusque perhaps", but considered that the FTT judge had been entitled to reach the conclusions she did and that her reasons were adequate. He picked out passages in the Applicant's statements to show that that evidence was a far cry from the uncle's evidence, thus...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT