Upper Tribunal (Immigration and asylum chamber), 2018-05-02, AA/00017/2016

Appeal Number: AA/00017/2016

Upper Tribunal

(Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: AA/00017/2016

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Heard at Manchester On 6th March 2018	Decision& Reasons Promulgated On 2nd May 2018

Before

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE HANSON

Between

AHMED [A-K]

(anonymity direction not made)

Appellant

and

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT

Respondent

Representation:

For the Appellant: Miss N Wilkins instructed by the Greater Manchester Immigration Aid Unit.

For the Respondent: Mr C Bates Senior Home Office Presenting Officer.

ERROR OF LAW FINDING AND REASONS

1. The appellant appeals with permission against a decision of First-tier Tribunal Judge Gurung-Thapa, promulgated on 6 July 2017, in which the Judge dismissed the appellant’s appeal on protection and human rights grounds.

Background

2. The appellant claimed to be a citizen of Syria born on [ ] 1998. He claimed asylum in the United Kingdom on 30 July 2014 on this basis. The respondent refused the application on 16 December 2015 against which the appellant appealed.

3. The Judge noted that the EURODAC fingerprint database showed that the appellant had been fingerprinted in Italy on 25 May 2014. The Italian authorities have confirmed to the respondent that the appellant, in addition to providing the name and date of birth referred to above, also claimed he was Ahmed [A], an Egyptian national, born on 24 May 1997.

4. Having considered the evidence, the Judge sets out her findings of fact from [27] of the decision under challenge. At [29] the Judge writes: “Miss Smith confirmed that the only issue in the appeal is the appellant’s nationality. In his rebuttal statement, the appellant asserts that he is a Syrian national and that he speaks the Syrian dialect of Arabic. He told the Home Office in his statement that he had lived in Egypt and has never attempted to hide this fact. While he believes that his dialect may have been influenced by the Egyptian dialect, he maintains that he does not speak the Egyptian dialect and that he is not an Egyptian citizen.”

5. The Judge noted the core of the appellant’s case and that the respondent relied upon a language analysis from Verified AB. The Judge also notes the appellant relied upon a report from a Professor Yaron Matras dated 30 July 2016, who is a Professor of Linguistics at the University of Manchester. The Judge notes the appellant’s expert is critical of the evaluation of the Verified report on the grounds that an individual’s speech is rarely uniform and that young people who have left their home region and have come into contact with other migrants of different backgrounds usually have a complex of differentiated repertoire of speech forms that shows variation according to style, setting and interlocutor and, secondly, on the ground that Verified fails to provide any justification or explanation for the choice of the Cairo dialect as an alternate hypothesis [39].

6. The Judge’s core findings are set out between [41 – 53] in the following terms:

“41. I have taken into account both the reports and accept that there are limitations and that the Verified report has to be considered in its context. Likewise, I find that there are also limitations on the report of Professor Matras as he only considered the 38 minutes telephone recording and did not interview the appellant. Further, while he is of the view that the appellant’s most likely place of origin is Damascus, he accepts that individuals’ speech is rarely uniform especially that of young people.

42. I have given due weight to the two reports but I also have to assess all the evidence in the round and make my own findings.

43. I had the benefit of seeing and listening most carefully to the appellant as he gave his evidence. I have given due regard to the fact that the appellant was aged 16 when he entered the UK and was aged 17 when he had his substantive asylum interview. I find that there are material inconsistencies which damages the appellant’s credibility and thus reject the appellants claim that he is a Syrian national.

44. The appellant and his substantive asylum interview stated that he was born in Al Yarmouk camp and not live anywhere else in Syria (Qs 10 and 11). He described working with his father in construction and they worked a lot in the camp itself (Qs 26 and 27). He stated that he did not know Umayyad Mosque (Q30). The respondent in the refusal letter states that Umayyad Mosque is one of the largest, oldest and holiest mosques of the world found in the centre of Damascus (paragraph h). Following the appellant’s substantive interview his previous representatives made further submissions in response to the interview record and in relation to Q30 where it states that the appellant had said that he didn’t go to the mosque, he told the interpreter that he caught the bus to get to the centre of Damascus and then went there twice. He does not know why the answer says that he does not know but he is sure that he gave this information (D1).

45. If the appellant had indeed attended the Umayyad Mosque then it is reasonable to conclude that he would have said so in his substantive asylum interview. The appellant claims that he told the interpreter that he caught the bus to get to the centre of Damascus in order to attend the mosque and if he is to be believed in his account then this would have been recorded in his interview record. However, it is clearly recorded that he had indicated that he did not know the mosque (Q30). It is not the appellant’s assertion that he could not understand the interpreter or that the interpreter had misunderstood him. The appellant at the conclusion of his interview confirmed that he understood all the questions put to him and that he understood the Home Office interpreter (B27). Present at the interview was also his representative (B28). The representative did not state that the appellant had problems understanding the interpreter (B 28).

46. I find that there is also a material inconsistency as to when the appellant left Syria. In his screening interview, he claims that he left Syria about 5 months ago which was around February 2014 whereas in his witness statement he claims to have left Syria in 2012 but does not remember the date or time (C28). I find it reasonable to conclude that if the appellant had indeed left Syria in 2012 then he would have said so during his screening interview. In his screening interview, the appellant also failed to mention that he lived in Egypt for 2 years instead stating that he travelled through two unknown countries after Jordan where he stayed for 2 days and later on in France (2.1). In his screening interview, the appellant also claimed that his last address was Al Yarmok Street in Aleppo and gave the house number as 8 (7.1) and that his family remained in Syria (7.7). The appellant I find has not given a satisfactory explanation as to why he would not have mentioned the fact that he lived in Yamouk camp in Damascus and the fact that his parents and younger were in Egypt.

47. The appellant in cross examination was asked why he claimed in his screening interview that he left Syria around February 2014 and his response was that he did not say that. He was also asked why he failed to mention in his screening interview that he lived in Egypt. He replied that since he arrived in the UK he had told people who interviewed him that he went to Egypt and stayed there for 2 years. It was put to the appellant that in his screening interview he claimed that his parents were still in Syria and to this the appellant replied he said they accompanied him to Egypt and they stayed in Egypt. If the appellant is to be believed then it is reasonable to conclude that such information would have been recorded in his screening interview. I find that the appellant has failed to provide a satisfactory explanation.

48. I find the appellant also failed to state in his screening interview that he was in Italy where he was fingerprinted. He only mentioned the fact that he was fingerprinted in the UK (2.13). I find that the appellant had indeed concealed information and it cannot simply be put down to the fact that he was aged 16 at the time of that interview, especially when taking into consideration the fact that he himself asserts that he was afraid of the interpreter and the interviewing officer as they were talking about returning him to Italy because his fingerprints had been located there.

49. I find that the appellant had provided different identities...