Upper Tribunal (Immigration and asylum chamber), 2016-04-07, AA/03246/2015
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Date | 07 April 2016 |
| Published date | 29 March 2017 |
| Hearing Date | 29 February 2016 |
| Status | Unreported |
| Court | Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) |
| Appeal Number | AA/03246/2015 |
Upper Tribunal
(Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: AA/03246/2015
THE IMMIGRATION ACTS
Heard at Centre City Tower Birmingham
Decision & Reasons Promulgated
On 29th February 2016
On 7th April 2016
Before
DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE FRENCH
Between
hamed alizadeh
(ANONYMITY order not made)
Appellant
And
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent
Representation:
For the Appellant: Mr H Samra of Harbans Singh Solicitors
For the Respondent: Mr D Mills, Senior Home Office Presenting Officer
DECISION AND REASONS
1. The Appellant is a citizen of Afghanistan who initially claimed asylum in this country in 2008. As he had travelled through various European countries the Secretary of State proposed to remove him to Greece, under the Dublin Regulations, and the Appellant absconded. He made a subsequent claim in 2012, which was refused on 30th January 2015, and a decision made to remove him. The essence of his claim was that he had been involved in an illicit sexual relationship with a young woman who was killed by her family following becoming pregnant and that the Appellant was being sought for revenge by members of her family, who were persons in possession of power. The Appellant's appeal against the refusal of asylum and removal decision was heard by First-tier Tribunal Judge M Swinnerton, who dismissed the appeal in a decision promulgated on 28th May 2015. The Judge at first instance did not find the Appellant to be a credible witness for the reasons set out in the decision.
2. The Appellant applied for permission to appeal to this Tribunal. In brief the Grounds of Appeal were that the Judge made credibility findings on a failure to supply information in response to questions which were never asked, and erred in relying on the fact that he had not provided evidence of the sexual relationship, beyond his own evidence, which it was said he could not be expected to do, and also that in finding it significant that the Appellant's aunt had not been at risk and had remained in Afghanistan the Judge had failed to understand the cultural context of honour killings.
3. The grounds continued by asserting that the Judge had relied on incorrect information in stating that the Appellant had claimed that his family's property was burned down by the young woman's father and uncle after he had left Afghanistan and yet had made no earlier reference to this, whereas in fact it was referred to in his initial representations made in 2012. It was also said that the Judge erred in considering that the Appellant's evidence was inconsistent...
To continue reading
Request your trial