Upper Tribunal (Immigration and asylum chamber), 2018-06-05, PA/01389/2017
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Date | 05 June 2018 |
| Published date | 28 June 2018 |
| Hearing Date | 24 May 2018 |
| Court | Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) |
| Status | Unreported |
| Appeal Number | PA/01389/2017 |
Upper Tribunal
(Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: PA/01389/2017
THE IMMIGRATION ACTS
|
Heard at Field House |
Decision & Reasons Promulgated |
|
On 24 May 2018 |
On 5 June 2018 |
|
|
|
Before
DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE CHAPMAN
Between
master e d
(ANONYMITY DIRECTION made)
Appellant
and
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent
Representation:
For the Appellant: Ms E Mitchell, Counsel instructed by Sutovic & Hartigan
For the Respondent: Mr L Tarlow, Home Office Presenting Officer
DECISION AND REASONS
-
The Appellant is a national of Albania born on 19 July 1999. He claims to have left Tirana on 26 June 2016 by air for France and was found at a service station in the United Kingdom on 15 July 2016. He made an asylum claim on 1 August 2016. The basis of his claim is that he had been subjected to repeated sexual abuse by an older man. This was eventually discovered as a consequence of which the Appellant was questioned by his father and thrown out of the house, following which he fled the country fearing either that he was at risk of being killed by his abuser and/or at risk of an honour killing by his family.
-
The Appellant’s asylum application was refused by the Respondent in a decision dated 27 January 2017. The Appellant appealed against this decision and his appeal came before Judge of the First-tier Tribunal Baldwin for hearing on 20 July 2017. In a Decision and Reasons promulgated on 27 October 2017, the judge dismissed the appeal, essentially on the basis that he did not accept the Appellant’s claim to be either plausible or credible despite the evidence, which included a report from a clinical psychologist, Dr Heke, and a country expert report from Dr Erisa Senerdem. An application for permission to appeal was made in time on the basis of three grounds:-
-
that the judge had erred in his assessment of the plausibility of the Appellant’s account by reference to his own personal view of what a victim of repeated sexual abuse was likely to do, and without taking account of the relevant socio-cultural factors identified in the objective and expert evidence;
-
in basing his assessment in part on a perverse factual finding as to the Appellant’s beliefs about his former abuser; and
-
in rejecting expert psychological evidence without giving adequate reasons for doing so.
-
-
Permission to appeal was granted by Upper Tribunal Judge Finch on 5 March 2018 in the following terms:-
“The First-tier Tribunal Judge relied heavily on his own assessment of the plausibility of the account given by the Appellant and did not refer to relevant objective evidence in the Appellant’s Bundle.
The First-tier Tribunal Judge also appears to have made an error as to where the Appellant’s alleged abuser lived.
It is also arguable that the manner in which the First-tier Tribunal Judge approached the expert psychological evidence did not conform with Mibanga v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2005] EWCA Civ 367.
As a consequence, I am been (sic) satisfied that First-tier Tribunal Judge Baldwin’s decision and reasons did contain arguable errors of law and that it is appropriate to grant the Appellants (sic) permission to appeal.”
There was no Rule 24 response on behalf of the Respondent.
Hearing
-
I heard detailed submissions from Ms Mitchell on behalf of the Appellant. She submitted in respect of ground 1 that it was clear from the judgment of Lord Neuberger in HK v Secretary of State [2006] EWCA Civ 1037 at [28] to [29] which was also applied in the case of Y v Secretary of State [2006] EWCA Civ 1223 at [25] that the socio-cultural context is critical in assessing the plausibility of an applicant’s account and that expert and objective evidence provided an indispensable guide to this context. Ms Mitchell drew attention to the country expert report of Ms Senerdem where she set out the fact that sexual violence in Albania remains highly unreported, in part because it was considered shameful, in particular sexual intercourse of a homosexual nature.
-
She submitted that whilst at [25] the judge accepted it was not implausible that somebody such as the Appellant might be extremely reluctant to tell either his parents or teachers about his abuse, the judge went on to reject the claim on the basis that this had happened at the instigation of one man over a number of years, and in so doing the judge erred in failing to take account of any of the expert or objective evidence. The judge further erred in respect of ground 2 in finding at [24] that the Appellant believed that his abuser did not live in the same town, however, this is a misunderstanding by the judge in light of the fact that both in his Statement of Evidence Form and his asylum interview the Appellant stated he believed his abuser lived in Bajram Curri, but he did not know where. This is the Appellant’s home town or village and it appears there was confusion by the judge as to the name of the village and the name of the region (Tropoje). It was submitted this error is material in that it compounded the erroneous approach to the Appellant’s credibility as set out in ground 1.
-
In respect of the third ground of appeal, attention was drawn to the fact that Dr Heke found that the Appellant met the full criteria for PTSD and major depressive disorder, that he had engaged in self-harming and presented a significant suicide risk due to being forced to leave the UK. She also noted that the Appellant’s comprehension was relatively poor and that he had difficulty understanding and expressing the extent of his psychological problems. Attention was drawn to the judgment in Mibanga [2005] EWCA Civ 367 at [26] and the cases of Y (Sri Lanka) [2009] EWCA Civ 362 at [11] and KS (Burma) [2003] EWCA Civ 67 at [29]. It was submitted that the judge had erred in the manner in which he had treated the report of Dr Heke in that he failed to treat it as corroborative of the Appellant’s account of the abuse he had suffered despite the fact that it provided a clinical explanation for the Appellant’s reluctance to discuss his past trauma and his difficulty answering questions about events in Albania. The Judge further failed to treat the report as establishing that the Appellant suffered from significant mental health issues and presented a real risk of self-harm if returned to Albania. Whilst at [24] to [27] of his judgment, the judge provided seven reasons for rejecting the report, it was submitted that none of these in fact justified any reduction...
To continue reading
Request your trial