Upper Tribunal (Immigration and asylum chamber), 2014-11-19, AA/06170/2010
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Date | 19 November 2014 |
| Published date | 05 March 2015 |
| Hearing Date | 30 July 2014 |
| Court | Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) |
| Status | Unreported |
| Appeal Number | AA/06170/2010 |
ÐÏ#ࡱ#á################>###þÿ #################U###########W#######þÿÿÿ####R###S###T###ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿì¥Á#)` ###ø#¿###############�#####bjbj�#�################### ###7�##â{##â{##-#######S#######################ÿÿ##########ÿÿ##########ÿÿ##################¤#####r#######r###r#######r#######r#######r#######r###############ä###�###`V######`V######`V##8###�V######¬W##|###x#######�##2###4X##�###¶X######ÌX######ÌX######ÌX######ÌX##p###[2011] UKSC 4 handed down on 1st February 2011. In light of this judgment and the Appellant�s fresh evidence concerning her purported children, the parties agree that it is appropriate to remit the Appellant�s appeal to the Upper Tribunal for the case to be reheard and for submissions to be made on ZH (Tanzania)
2. Further, no submissions were made before the Upper Tribunal concerning HJ (Iran) [2010] 3 WLR 386, judgment having been handed down by the Supreme Court on 7th July 2010. The Appellant has submitted fresh evidence concerning her religious belief and now seeks to rely on this judgment. A rehearing will allow the fresh evidence to be considered and for submissions to be made on HJ (Iran)
Thereafter the case has been before the Upper Tribunal on a number of occasions to allow confirmation of the Appellant�s representative, to await the promulgation of the country guidance case relating to the risk to Christians in China of # HYPERLINK "https://tribunalsdecisions.service.gov.uk/utiac/decisions/2014-ukut-86" ##QH (Christians - risk) China CG [2[2014] UKUT 00086 (IAC) and as a result of the failure of the Appellants representatives to comply with directions relating to the filing of documents which would have resulted in a wasted costs order being made against them but for the failure of the administration to served the required �show cause� notice upon French and Co
Background
The Appellant was born in China in 1984 and has filed six witness statements in support of her case in addition to giving oral evidence and being cross examined. The core of her claim is that she graduated from primary school in 1997 and from secondary school in 2000. At that time her mother started to believe in Jesus. The Applicant would read the bible to her mother as a result of which she too became interested. In June 2004 the Appellant travelled to another village to collect bibles and on 3rd October 2004 was baptised. In 2005 the Appellant states she was asked to travel to other villages to preach and distribute leaflets although as her knowledge of the bible was not as detailed as it needed to be she attended classes to study the bible. In March 2006 the Police arrested those attending the bible class. The Appellant states she was detained and sentenced to three years education through a labour camp. She was transferred to such a camp although bailed on 30th March 2008 as she required medical treatment. On 25th December 2008 the Appellant attended a church meeting which was raided by the Police although she claims she managed to escape. The Appellant also claims that the Police went to her house and that a wanted notice was issued against her. She left China with the help of the Snakeheads and travelled to Moscow where she met a man who became her partner, Wei Jie Chen. On 5th June 2009 she left Moscow for an unknown country before entering the United Kingdom on 15th August 2009. The asylum claim was made four months later on 7th December 2009.
On 30th January 2010 the Appellant gave birth to her son. In June 2011 the Appellant separated from her son�s father, Sheng Zeng Chen.
In her statement of the 26th January 2012 the Appellant claims to have given birth to a daughter on 15th February 2006 in China out of wedlock. The Appellant claims that as the child was born out of wedlock she will not be permitted to attend school or receive state medical assistance. The child is being cared for by the Appellant�s parents in China as her father has abandoned her. It is also claimed there have been attempts to resolve the child�s status which have not proved successful as a result of demands for what are descried as �exorbitant fees� by the officials concerned.
In her statement dated 10th December 2010, prepared for the purpose of the hearing before the Court of Appeal, the Appellant claims not to have a birth certificate for her daughter in China as she was unable to obtain a child-bearing certificate in accordance with the law. The Appellant asserts she is in breach of the �one child� policy as a result. DNA tests were commissioned. The Appellant also refers to a perceived risk on return as a result of her Christian beliefs under the Ministry of Watchman Nee and Witness Lee. She claims followers of this Ministry are often known as �The Local Churches� or �The Lords Recovery� outside China.
In her witness statement dated 20th May 2010 the Appellant claims to be a member of the Christian underground church as a result of which she was arrested and sentenced to three years �education�. She fell pregnant whilst in Moscow and has never been to an official/state church in China and so does not appreciate the differences between her chosen religion and that practiced in other churches. Further comments upon the content of the reasons for refusal letter are made which do not need to be set out but which have been considered in detail by the Tribunal as has all the available evidence, both written and oral.
In her witness statement dated 29th July 2013 the Appellant blames her reduced attendance at church in the period between her two statements upon the need to attend English classes, her son having asthma, together with help given to a friend who is ill. It is claimed this made it difficult for the Appellant to maintain her commitment to the church during that time, although since February/March 2013 her son�s health has improved and the Appellant claims she is able to attend church regularly. The Appellant specifically states that she has asked the leader of her church to support her in her case but that he has been reluctant to do so.
The Appellant claims to attend the church and related meetings as much as possible and that if returned to China she will not be able to openly practice her religion as the only State sanctioned religions are Catholicism and Protestant which she states she will not want to attend because they are not the same denomination. The Appellant also claims she will be unable to practice her religion at home as she will be persecuted and that she practiced in a �house church� by choice.
In her most recent witness statement, dated 9th July 2014, the Appellant states that in China they held meetings in unregistered local house churches. It is also stated that the church cannot be registered as it is viewed as a cult and so the meetings cannot be open. The Ministry is not based upon any name or denomination. The term �The Lords Recovery� is said to be one of the names attributed to this Christian Ministry by the Chinese Government and other denominations. The Appellant states the Ministry believe that the Lord is moving today to recover the proper testimony of the church in this age, based upon the truths revealed in the bible.
The Appellant also states she meets with fellow followers of this church every Sunday in Nottingham and tries to attend as many home meetings as possible held in member�s house on a weekly basis. The Appellant repeats her belief that she will be at risk on return for her beliefs and states that the Chinese government regards the Christian Ministry of Watchman Nee and Witness Lee as �The Shouters�, and therefore a cult in China, as a result of the calling of the Lord�s name. She accepts that the Ministry she follows are not part of �The Shouters� although the Ministry is viewed as a threat by the government as a result of its rapid growth in popularity.
The Appellant summarises the elements of her case which give rise to a real risk as being (a) her illegal departure from China in February 2009, (b) her entering the United Kingdom and claiming asylum based upon a fear from the Communist Party thereby tarnishing the good name of China (c) breaching the �one child policy� and (d) being a member of a Ministry that is banned and unregistered and which has been associated with the Church of Almighty God.
In her oral evidence the Appellant claimed that if returned to China she will not want to go to another church as it will not be the same as her faith. She stated that her son born in the UK may be prevented from attending school and that if she is arrested on return there will be no one to care for the child. The child is said to receive medication for his asthma. The child also speaks both English and Mandarin.
The Appellant was asked in cross-examination about her comment
that she had asked a leader of her church to support her in evidencing her attendance but that he had refused to do so. When asked why this was so the Appellant claimed that it was because she had not asked and that this person was not the leader in any event, but a fellow of the church which had no leaders. When the Appellant asked him to assist her and come to court she stated he did not say he would help her and so in the end she did not ask him. The explanation given for there being no letters in support written by others pre July 2014 was because the Appellant claims not to have asked for them ...To continue reading
Request your trial