Upper Tribunal (Immigration and asylum chamber), 2019-09-25, PA/02486/2019
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Date | 25 September 2019 |
| Published date | 02 December 2019 |
| Hearing Date | 06 September 2019 |
| Status | Unreported |
| Court | Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) |
| Appeal Number | PA/02486/2019 |
PA/02486/2019
Upper Tribunal
(Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: PA/02486/2019
THE IMMIGRATION ACTS
|
Heard at Glasgow |
Decision & Reasons Promulgated |
|
On 6 September 2019 |
On 25 September 2019 |
|
|
|
Before
UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE DAWSON
Between
EN
(ANONYMITY DIRECTION made)
Appellant
and
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent
Representation:
For the Appellant: Mr K Forrest, instructed by McGlashan MacKay Solicitors
For the Respondent: Mr M Clark, Senior Presenting Officer
DECISION AND REASONS
I make an order for anonymity pursuant to Rule 14 of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008 prohibiting disclosure of any matter that may lead to the identification of the appellants and other parties to these proceedings. Any breach may lead to contempt proceedings.
-
The appellant will be referred to as EN in this decision and his wife as KN.
-
This is an appeal by a national of Azerbaijan (where he was born in 1989) against the decision of First-tier Tribunal Judge A Green. For reasons given in his decision dated 3 May 2019 the judge dismissed the appellant’s appeal against the Secretary of State’s decision dated 7 March 2019 refusing his protection claim which had been based on political opinion and his Christianity. The appellant had also contended that his removal would breach his rights under the Human Rights Convention, Articles 2, 3 and 8. The appellant’s wife and son are dependents on his claim.
-
The political opinion claim is based on membership of the Azerbaijani Popular Front (APF) which had led to the appellant’s detention and ill-treatment by the authorities on a date in October 2017; the precise day not having been given in evidence, and on 1 and 14 or 15 April 2018, the third occasion being when the appellant contends he was ill-treated. The appellant had applied for a visit visa to the United Kingdom on 29 June 2018. He left on his own passport on the grant of that visa and arrived in the United Kingdom on 24 August 2018. The Secretary of State did not accept that the appellant was a “genuine member” of the APF nor was it accepted that he had been arrested and detained as claimed. His faith was accepted however but here too the Secretary of State did not accept that the appellant had ever been persecuted as a consequence in the light of the religious mix in Azerbaijan.
-
Judge Green considered the appellant’s credibility lay at the heart of the protection claim. This aspect was considered in detail in his decision between [19] and [32]. He accepted the appellant had established that he was a member of the APF which he had joined on 11 February 2014. He also accepted the appellant had been questioned about his party membership by the police as well as the account that the appellant had been detained on a second occasion claimed in April 2018 which coincided with the Presidential elections. As to the third occasion on 15 April 2018, the judge accepted the appellant’s account of having been injured but that he had not established who had caused those injuries, as explained in [26] of his decision as follows:
“26. I am prepared to accept the Appellant’s evidence that he was injured. However, for the reasons given below, he has not established who caused those injuries. I accept that KN clearly saw that his head was injured when he came home. Whilst the hospital certificate does not refer to the Appellant’s blood pressure or that he was vomiting, it does note that he was examined in the emergency department and it was clear that he had brain concussion. He had tissue injuries and bruises. It also confirms that he was in hospital for two days. I accept KN’s explanation about high blood pressure and vomiting. It is plausible that these were not observed in hospital but could have occurred when he was at home. The Respondent has submitted that the Appellant’s evidence should not be accepted because he has not provided an expert medical report on his injuries. If, as claimed, the Appellant suffered soft tissue injuries just over a year ago, I fail to see what such a report could achieve. His wounds would have healed and may well not have resulted in scarring. What I do have is the benefit of KN’s contemporaneous evidence of his injuries which I give weight.”
-
Thereafter the judge gave detailed reasons why the appellant had failed to establish he was of adverse interest to the authorities leading to his claimed third arrest as follows:
“27. I do not accept that the Appellant has established that he was of adverse interest to the Azerbaijani authorities leading to his claimed third arrest and which places him at risk if he returns to Azerbaijan for the following reasons:
a. KN claims in her statement that the Appellant was arrested. How could she know that if the Appellant, as he claims, was telephoned and told to attend the Baku police station? She did not see him being arrested. One can only assume that she is relying on hearsay.
b. He has not provided objective evidence of the rally that he claimed to have attended on 14 April 2018. Given the interest that the international media and human rights organisations are taking in Azerbaijan, I think he could reasonably be expected to have been able to produce publicly available evidence of the rally. I acknowledge that the Appellant has provided background evidence in generic terms highlighting the oppressive nature of the regime, but he could have provided further evidence of the demonstration on 14 April 2018.
c. If he was detained for 7 days and beaten before being released, I struggle to understand why he chose to remain in Azerbaijan until 24 August 2018. By his account this was a severe attack and yet he stayed in that country for another four months. A person in genuine fear of their life would not have done that. They would have realised that their life was in danger and would have left as soon as possible.
d. He has provided contradictory evidence of his actions after being released from custody and prior to leaving in Azerbaijan. In paragraph 12 of his witness statement he says that throughout that period, he kept a low profile and stopped going to party meetings. He did not participate in any demonstrations. He claims to have gone out as little as possible. When he was cross examined, he was asked if he engaged in any political activity after his third arrest. He told Mr Wright that he attended meetings and prepared placards. He said that he posted pictures of political prisoners at underground stations. When challenged about the obvious contradiction between what he had said in his witness statement and what he said under cross examination, he simply blamed the interpreter. However, his witness statement was clear, and it confirms that it was read over to him. He signed it and adopted it as true. One must assume in the absence of any corrections, he understood what he had said in his statement and accepted it was true otherwise he would not have signed it and he would not have adopted it. It was taken as read and stood as his evidence in chief. Furthermore, I do not accept that putting up political posters in underground stations can be described as keeping a low profile. He would have put himself at risk by such behaviour in a public place. This contradiction significantly damages his credibility.
e. He obtained a 6 month visit visa and travelled freely from Azerbaijan through an airport without any difficulty. If, as he claims, he was of adverse interest to the authorities, he would have encountered problems when exiting the country. This is not the behaviour of a person who claims to have been persecuted and fears he will suffer further mistreatment.
f. If the Appellant was such a committed political activist, as he claims, and was prepared to put his and his family’s safety at risk, I find it surprising that he has not engaged in any sur place activity in this country. His evidence on this was clear. He says he has not engaged in any political activity since coming to this country. In paragraph 15 of his witness statement, he claims that he did not want to put his family at risk in Azerbaijan. That contradicts his position in his oral evidence that he continued to be politically active after he was last released. If what he says is true, he would have put his family at risk and he would have stopped his political activism after his release.
g. The Appellant has produced official documents purporting, amongst other things, to be summonses. The objective evidence produced by the Respondent indicates that fake official documents such as the type produced by the Appellant are readily available in Azerbaijan and I agree with the Respondent’s analysis in paragraph 41 of the refusal letter. I give them little weight.
h. The objective evidence produced by the Appellant does indeed show that there is widespread repression of political activists and journalists in Azerbaijan. However, this evidence focusses on high profile critics and activists, journalists and bloggers. The Appellant is not named in that material. At best he was a low-ranking party member with no evidence of blogging or other activities. He may have come to the authorities’ notice prior to his claimed detention...
To continue reading
Request your trial