Upper Tribunal (Immigration and asylum chamber), 2017-10-18, AA/06409/2015 & Others
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Date | 18 October 2017 |
| Published date | 07 November 2017 |
| Hearing Date | 11 October 2017 |
| Status | Unreported |
| Court | Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) |
| Appeal Number | AA/06409/2015 & Others |
Appeal Number: AA/06409/2015
AA/06565/2015
AA/06566/2015
AA/06567/2015
AA/06568/2015
Upper Tribunal
(Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Numbers: aa/06409/2015
AA/06565/2015
AA/06566/2015
AA/06567/2015
AA/06568/2015
THE IMMIGRATION ACTS
|
Heard at Field House |
Decision & Reasons Promulgated |
|
On 11th October 2017 |
On 18th October 2017 |
|
|
|
Before
DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE GRIMES
Between
MR SM
MRS AM
MASTER AM
MISS AM
MASTER AM
(ANONYMITY DIRECTION made)
Appellants
and
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent
Representation:
For the Appellants: Ms R Moffatt, Counsel instructed by Simman Solicitors
For the Respondent: Ms Willocks-Briscoe, Home Office Presenting Officer
DECISION AND REASONS
-
The Appellants, nationals of Albania, appealed to the First-tier Tribunal against the decision of the Secretary of State to refuse their application for asylum in the UK. First-tier Tribunal Judge Kaler dismissed the appeal in a decision promulgated on 20th March 2017. The Appellants now appeal to this Tribunal on the basis of permission granted by First-tier Tribunal Judge Grimmett on 14th August 2017.
-
The first Appellant is a male citizen of Albania, the second Appellant is his wife and the other three Appellants are their children. They all claimed asylum on entry to the UK on 25th February 2013. A request to return the Appellants to Italy under the Dublin Convention was accepted by the Italian authorities but following although they were to be removed to Italy under the Dublin Convention and the Appellants applications for asylum were refused on these grounds of appeal. However, following an application for Judicial Review the first Appellant was interviewed and the Respondent made the decision to refuse the applications on 24th March 2015.
-
The basis of the first Appellant's claim is that there is a blood feud between his family and another family and that he is at risk in Albania as the result of this blood feud. The Secretary of State did not accept that the Appellant or his father is involved in a land dispute with the family of MM as claimed. In any event the Secretary of State accepted that there is a sufficiency of protection in Albania and that internal relocation remained a viable option because it is not unduly harsh for the Appellant to relocate within Albania.
-
In her decision the First-tier Tribunal Judge considered the documentary evidence submitted in relation to court proceedings in Albania and concluded that she was satisfied that there was a land dispute between the Appellant’s father and MM’s family and that the Appellant is now acting as a plaintiff in respect of land he is claiming from MM [52]. Because of inconsistencies in the Appellant’s evidence the judge did not accept that the Appellant received a text message causing him to leave his home. The judge accepted that there were some threats made to the Appellant which related to the dispute between the families [54]. The judge accepted that there was a protracted land dispute saying that the threats were at most an attempt to stop the Appellant from pursuing his claim for land [54]. The judge noted that it appeared from the documents that the courts have ruled in favour of MM’s family so that there is little for them to gain from any ongoing threats. The Appellant has decided not to pursue his claim and the judge noted that, while courts are open to bribes, there was no evidence before her to show that MM’s family is influential. She noted that the courts appear to have considered the matter fully and it did not follow that the judge had been bribed. The First-tier Tribunal Judge said that the robbery and arson at the home of the Appellant’s parents may have been to do with the land dispute or it may have been due to other people who have nothing to do with the dispute and noted that it seemed astonishing that if these events occurred the parents did not contact the police, instead contacting only the Appellant after the fire [55]. The judge did not accept that the Appellant left his home area without his parents because of threats or fear of violence. The judge accepted that what starts as a dispute about land can escalate into a blood feud [56] and went on to consider whether that is what actually occurred in this case. The judge found that there was no connection between the land dispute and the murder of the son of MM noting that another man was prosecuted and sentenced for the death of MM’s son and that if there is a blood feud it is more likely that it exists between MM and the family of the man who was sentenced. The judge accepted that there was a feud between the Appellant’s family and that of MM but it was not a blood feud noting that no blood was spilt that involved this Appellant and did not conclude that MM believed this Appellant was involved after the conviction of the other man [56].
-
The judge considered the country guidance case of EH (blood feuds) Albania CG [2012] UKUT 00348. The judge noted at paragraph 59 that the only evidence that there may be a threat to the Appellant and his family now comes by way of the reports from Albania from the Appellant’s mother but noted that there was no direct evidence from her. The judge noted that, although there was a statement from another witness who is in the UK and claims to have spoken to the Appellant’s mother, she was not tendered for evidence so her evidence could not be tested. The judge concluded with her omnibus findings of fact at paragraph 60 finding that the Appellant owns some land in Albania and that another family laid claim to the land and went through the courts to establish their rights and won. The judge found that it was credible that there were threats made during the course of those proceedings but it was not established that those making the threats were responsible for any arson or robbery. The son of MM was murdered in 2007 and the murderer was imprisoned. The judge did not find that any threats made to the Appellant or his family relate to that murder but were in relation to the land dispute. The judge did not accept that the Appellant’s brothers have fled or are in hiding because of any threats. There was no evidence of any threats made to them and they were not interested in the land dispute. The Appellant’s mother is not in hiding, she was located by the Appellant’s mother-in-law. There is or was a land dispute in the judge’s findings but no blood feud.
-
In terms of the sufficiency of protection the judge found at paragraph 62 that the authorities act in relation to threats and offending and investigate complaints noting that they decided in one case not to act as they found the complaint related to a land dispute. The judge was not persuaded on the evidence that the police would not investigate matters because of any influence exerted upon them as they successfully prosecuted the murder of MM’s son.
Grounds of appeal
-
The Grounds of Appeal to the Upper Tribunal contend that the First-tier Tribunal Judge erred in failing to consider the expert country report of Antonia Young saying at paragraph 59 that the expert country evidence is only relevant if she made a finding that there was a blood feud. However it is submitted that the country report was relevant to the question of credibility in that it addressed the plausibility of the Appellant’s account and the question of the existence of a blood feud. It is contended that the expert evidence was relevant in terms of the plausibility and external consistency of the Appellant’s account. It is contended that in failing to take this evidence into account the judge failed to consider credibility in the round and erred materially.
-
The second ground contends that in finding that the authorities are able to offer protection the judge failed to give reasons as to why the expert’s evidence to the contrary was rejected.
-
In the third ground it is contended that the judge made inconsistent findings in that she found that the first Appellant received threats from the aggressor family and that the robbery and arson took place as claimed but also found that he received no threats in relation to the murder of MM’s son and that the robbery and arson were not perpetrated by the aggressor family. It is contended that the First-tier Tribunal Judge failed to give proper reasons for distinguishing between the two factual findings.
-
Permission to appeal was granted on the basis that it is arguable that the judge erred in failing to consider the expert report only after she had concluded that there was no blood feud as it dealt with how such feuds arise.
Discussion and conclusions
-
The first ground contends that the judge erred in failing to consider the expert’s report. At paragraph 59 the judge said;
“59...
To continue reading
Request your trial