Upper Tribunal (Immigration and asylum chamber), 2019-02-08, PA/09602/2017
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Date | 08 February 2019 |
| Published date | 11 March 2019 |
| Hearing Date | 14 December 2018 |
| Status | Unreported |
| Court | Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) |
| Appeal Number | PA/09602/2017 |
Appeal Number: PA/09602/2017
Upper Tribunal
(Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: PA/09602/2017
THE IMMIGRATION ACTS
|
Heard at Newport |
Decision & Reasons Promulgated |
|
On 14 December 2018 |
On 8 February 2019 |
|
|
|
Before
UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE GRUBB
Between
MR
(ANONYMITY DIRECTION made)
Appellant
and
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent
Representation:
For the Appellant: Mr M Murphy instructed by J Stifford, Solicitors
For the Respondent: Ms H Aboni, Senior Home Office Presenting Officer
DECISION AND REASONS
-
Pursuant to rule 14 of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008 (SI 2008/2698) I make an anonymity order prohibiting the disclosure or publication of any matter likely to lead to members of the public identifying the appellant. A failure to comply with this direction could lead to Contempt of Court proceedings.
Introduction
-
The appellant is a citizen of Bangladesh who was born on 10 October 1988. He first arrived in the United Kingdom on 17 September 2009 as a Tier 4 student. That leave was subsequently extended until 27 July 2014. In December 2013, he left the UK to return to Bangladesh before returning to the UK on 26 January 2014. Thereafter, he applied for leave to remain which was refused on 26 September 2014 with no right of appeal. On 5 August 2016, the appellant was served with notice (RED.0001) that he was subject to administrative removal as an overstayer.
-
On 2 February 2017, the appellant claimed asylum. On 15 September 2017, the Secretary of State refused the appellant’s claims for asylum, humanitarian protection and on human rights grounds.
-
The appellant appealed to the First-tier Tribunal. Following a hearing on 22 October 2017, in a determination promulgated on 30 October 2017 Judge Suffield-Thompson dismissed the appellant’s appeal on all grounds.
-
The appellant sought permission to appeal to the Upper Tribunal. That was initially refused by the First-tier Tribunal but on 30 May 2018 the Upper Tribunal (UTJ Bruce) granted the appellant permission to appeal.
-
On 1 August 2018, the Secretary of State filed a rule 24 notice seeking to upheld Judge Suffield-Thompson’s decision.
The Judge’s Decision
-
The appellant’s claim for asylum was based upon his, and his family’s, political involvement in Bangladesh. He claimed that he and his family had been involved in anti-government politics. In particular, he claimed that during the local elections in 2016, his family assisted his father’s friend who was an opposition candidate. His family were threatened and forced to leave their home. His uncle (“SM”) was targeted, shot and died in hospital. Before the judge, the appellant claimed (relying upon documents provided at the hearing) that a false charge had been made against him in Bangladesh by political opponents and that he was subject to a First Information Report and arrest warrant. He feared that if he returned to Bangladesh he would be killed.
-
Before Judge Suffield-Thompson, the respondent was not represented by a Presenting Officer. Nevertheless, no application for an adjournment was made and the judge dealt with the case without a Home Office representative. The appellant was represented by Counsel and, in addition to relying upon documentary and other written evidence, the appellant gave oral evidence as did his uncle.
-
In dismissing the appellant’s appeal, the judge made an adverse credibility finding and did not accept the truth of the appellant’s claim or evidence.
-
First, at para 27 the judge noted that the appellant had only claimed asylum after he had been served with notice of removal as an overstayer and that she took “great note of the timing of this claim”. That reflects the judge’s reference to s.8 of the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc.) Act 2004 at para 24 of her determination which she said she bore “firmly in mind”.
-
Secondly, the judge identified a number of inconsistencies in the appellant’s evidence which undermined his credibility. These are set out at paras 28–35 of her determination as follows:
“28. The Appellant has not been consistent in his evidence both written and oral either during the hearing or in his SI and AI. I will set out the conflicts in his evidence below.
29. In his AI the Appellant (AI. Q6) stated that his parents had to leave their home and moved to a safe place in March 2016. In his first witness statement (paragraph 2) he said his parents had helped at the election in “Summer last year” and then as a consequence had to move. So, there is an inconsistency with the date. I find that any event as traumatic as his family having to leave their life-long family home to be at a date the Appellant would be certain to remember.
30. In his AI (Q.62) the Appellant said that the summer in Bangladesh is March until May and the rainy season starts in June. This is not consistent with the information gathered by the Respondent. The Respondent states that on a website (http://rundownroute.com/index.php/runs/asia/item/) the six seasons of Bangladesh summer begins in mid April. I find that the Appellant was not honest in his answer in his AI.
31. In the AI the Appellant appears to be speaking of his “uncle”, the man named [SK] and later says he is a friend of his father. I do not find this to be a deliberate untruth as the Tribunal is aware from other Bangladeshi appeals that as a matter of respect people are often referred to as aunt or uncle when they are older friends of the Appellant’s parents. He clarified this as soon as he was asked to do so (AI, Q 23).
32. I now turn to the newspapers that the Appellant has submitted and that his counsel submits I should place great reliance upon. In his AI he was asked the date of the 2016 election and he said March 2016 (AI, Q19) but in the newspapers, he has submitted (with translations) one paper “The Daily Shurbana” says it was 31 March but the “Bangladeshi Pratidin” states it was 16 April.
33. The Appellant was asked in his AI why he could not go back home and he said (AI, Q53) that he had no safe place to say and yet he had laready (sic) told the officer at the start of the interview that his parents were now living in a safe place (AI, Q6).
34. Although the appellant has told the Home Office interviewing Officer and the Tribunal that his family had been threatened and he would be killed (AI, Q56) he was unable to say when and how this threat had taken place.
35. The Appellant has said that the opposition wanted to kill his parents but before they were attacked by the opposition they fled but he was unable to say when this happened. Again I do not find it credible that the Appellant would not know when this threat took place especially as it prompted, he says, his parents to leave their family home.”
-
Thirdly, at paras 36–40 the judge dealt with a number of documents that were relied upon by the appellant, including a death certificate said to relate to his uncle, letters of support including one said to be from the Bangladesh Nationalist Party (“BNP”) and a court warrant and charge sheet. The judge said this:
“36. The Appellant has stated that his uncle was killed due to his activities. I have a death certificate before me. Firstly, there is nothing before me to show that they are indeed blood relatives, there is nothing on the death certificate to say how he died and I note that there is no date of birth on this document of the deceased. I give it little weight in this appeal.
37. I now turn to the overall issue of the accuracy of the documents submitted by the Appellant. He has sent in newspaper articles, letters of support from family and a charge sheet and arrest warrant. In her skeleton argument Miss. Geherman relies upon the case of PJ v SSHD [2014] EWCA Civ 1011 in which the court stated that if there is a process of enquiry which will conclusively resolve the authenticity or reliability of a document and it is easy to carry out then the Respondent should undertake those checks.
38. However, the fact that they did not do so does not then mean I have to accept these documents as being of great evidential weight in the appeal. The dates of the elections in the papers are different which leads me to question their accuracy. In relation to the first information sheet, the arrest warrant and the charge sheet (Appellant’s bundle, pages 18-26) and the letter from the lawyer (Appellant’s bundle, page 15) I accept that I did not have the originals before me but the copy of the letter from the lawyer was one that could easily have been created by anyone. The reference number at the top was missing and the fact that it was dated 12 October 2017, just before the hearing leads me to give it little weight. I also had a copy of a letter purporting to come from the Bangladesh Nationalist Party (Appellant’s bundle, page 14). Again (through no fault of the Appellant) I did not see the original but the date of 12/10/17 is only some two weeks ago and states that his father was a member of the BNP and that this Appellant had to leave due to the family political activities. Again, this is an easy letter to create and I give it little weight in the light of the Appellant’s overall...
To continue reading
Request your trial