Upper Tribunal (Immigration and asylum chamber), 2024-08-22, UI-2023-002790

IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER
Case No: UI-2023-002790
First-tier Tribunal No: PA/53622/2022


THE IMMIGRATION ACTS


Decision & Reasons Issued:
On the 22 August 2024


Before

DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE FROOM


Between

LC
(ANONYMITY DIRECTION MADE)
Appellant
and

Secretary of State for the Home Department
Respondent


Representation:
For the Appellant: Mr M Spencer, Counsel, instructed by Leonard Cannings LLP, Solicitors
For the Respondent: Ms A Ahmed, Home Office Presenting Officer


Heard at Field House on 18 July 2024


DECISION AND REASONS



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 him. Failure to comply with this order could amount to a contempt of court.

Introduction
1. By a decision dated 3 July 2023 the First-tier Tribunal dismissed an appeal brought by the appellant, a citizen of Georgia, against a decision of the respondent dated 24 August 2022 refusing his protection and human rights claims.
2. The appellant’s partner and three minor children appealed as his dependants.
3. The First-tier Tribunal made an anonymity order and I consider it necessary to continue the order in order to protect the appellant’s identity.

Factual background
4. The appellant’s account can be summarised as follows. The appellant’s father fought on behalf of the Chechens in return for money. After his father's death, the Chechens provided financial support to the family. The Chechens subsequently demanded that the appellant join them, hide weapons in the house, convert to Islam and fight in their war. When he refused, the Chechens made threats against him and his family, including showing him photographs of his wife and child, who were already hiding in Russia. The appellant had sought help from the Georgian authorities to retrieve his father's body from the Chechens but, as a result of this, he was questioned about his involvement in the Caucasus and he was badly beaten up. When he sought help following the requests from the Chechens for him to join them, the authorities asked him to spy for them by joining the Chechens in order to report information back to them. The appellant fears that, on return to Georgia, he would be at risk from either the Chechens or the state authorities.
5. The respondent accepted the appellant’s nationality, that he had attended university, worked in a bank and that he had completed one year’s military service. The respondent also accepted that the appellant had given an internally consistent and detailed claim about his encounters with the Chechens. However, it was not accepted by the respondent that his claim had been externally consistent or credible.
6. The Judge of the First-tier Tribunal (“the judge”) heard oral evidence from the appellant and she considered the background evidence and two expert reports provided by Associate Professor Alexander Kupatadze from King’s College London (“the expert”). The judge noted that the case “hinged” on the appellant’s credibility: [35]. She noted the appellant had provided a consistent narrative: [36]. She considered the reasons put forward by the respondent for making an adverse credibility finding against the appellant and she rejected those reasons: [37]-[42]. She concluded that the appellant had given a credible account of events in Georgia and she accepted that he believes he is at risk of persecution on return: [43]. However, she did not accept that the appellant’s fear was objectively well founded. Her reasons were as follows:
“45. On this aspect of the appellant’s fear, I find that he has not demonstrated to the lower standard that he would be at risk of persecution on return. Whilst the objective evidence demonstrates that arbitrary detention does take place, he has not demonstrated why he would be of interest to the authorities on return.
46. In his report, Mr Kupatadze, although asked to do so, did not specifically answer the question. He states that the question is how the appellant’s flight from Georgia would be viewed. He states tat whatever interpretation is put on it, the authorities would be looking into his case on return. What is missing from the report is the approach the Georgian authorities take to returned asylum seekers, how returnees are monitored on return, whether there is routine questioning, a stop list etc. There are many unreferenced assertions.
47. In his initial report, Mr Kupatadze has not acknowledged his duty to the Tribunal when preparing the report. I have found that he has not addressed the nuances in some of the sources he has cited, choosing to quote some parts of the report which are discussed in a more considered way in different parts of the text. For the reasons above, I have found this report to be of limited assistance as I could not attach much weight to it.”
7. In order to understand the last sentence quoted above, it is necessary to consider the judge’s more detailed analysis of the expert’s reports. She noted that the respondent had not taken any issue with the expert’s expertise: [23]. She noted that the source material relied upon by the expert for his opinion that the appellant would face interrogation...