Upper Tribunal (Immigration and asylum chamber), 2019-11-11, PA/06683/2018
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Date | 11 November 2019 |
| Published date | 30 January 2020 |
| Hearing Date | 18 October 2019 |
| Status | Unreported |
| Court | Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) |
| Appeal Number | PA/06683/2018 |
Appeal Number: PA/06683/2018
Upper Tribunal
(Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: PA/06683/2018
THE IMMIGRATION ACTS
|
Heard at Manchester CJC |
Decision & Reasons Promulgated |
|
On 18 October 2019 |
On 11th November 2019 |
|
|
|
Before
DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE O’RYAN
Between
m B E A I
(anonymity direction MADE)
Appellant
and
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent
Representation:
For the Appellant: Mr Aziz, Lei Dat & Baig Solicitors
For the Respondent: Mr Tan, Senior Home Office Presenting Officer
DECISION AND REASONS
1 This is the Appellant’s appeal against the decision of Judge of the First-tier Tribunal Shergill dated 6 July 2018 dismissing the Appellant’s appeal against the decision of the Respondent dated 13 May 2018 refusing his protection and human rights claim.
2 It is not in dispute that the Appellant is a national of Sudan and is of non-Arab Darfuri origin. Paragraph 24 of the Respondent’s decision accepts that the Appellant is from Sudan and at paragraph 28 it is accepted that the Appellant is of the Berti tribe.
3 The Appellant entered the United Kingdom in or around November 2017 and claimed asylum, stating that he had left Sudan in 2013 and had travelled to various countries en route to the UK. The Appellant gave an account that he had come to the adverse attention of the authorities in Sudan due to a perceived connection with a car that was found to contain weapons, and was at risk of further serious harm upon return for that reason. He also claimed to fear serious harm merely on the basis that he was of non-Arab Darfuri origin. In that regard the Appellant sought to rely upon country guidance cases of AA (Non-Arab Darfuris - relocation) Sudan CG [2009] UKAIT 00056 and also MM (Darfuris) Sudan (CG) [2015] UKUT 10 (IAC).
4 The Respondent considered the Appellant’s application for protection and disbelieved his account of having come to the adverse attention of the Sudanese authorities. The Respondent also relied upon a joint report of the Danish Immigration Service and the UK Home Office dated March 2016 entitled ‘Sudan: Situation of Persons from Darfur, Southern Kordofan and Blue Nile in Khartoum’, and took the position that the situation for persons of non-Arab Darfuri origin in Khartoum was now such that they no longer faced a real risk of serious harm and that the Appellant could safely relocate to Khartoum if necessary. The Respondent also pointed out that this particular Appellant was said to have family including an uncle resident in Khartoum.
5 The appeal came before the judge on 27 June 2018 and the Appellant gave evidence. The judge held, due to certain inconsistencies and implausible elements within the Appellant’s evidence, that the Appellant had not come to the adverse attention of the Sudanese authorities.
6 The judge then considered the continuing application of the country guidance cases of AA and MM. The judge also had regard to the decision in IM and AI (Risks - membership of Beja Tribe, Beja Congress and JEM) Sudan (CG) [2016] UKUT 188 (IAC). In a detailed decision, the judge addressed his mind to the application of the existing country guidance (at paragraphs 19 to 23 of the decision) and considered at paragraph 29 onwards, under the title of “Quality of the Departure Evidence”. the evidence relied upon by the Respondent to support the proposition that internal relocation to Khartoum was now safe. The judge considered the CPIN Report entitled ‘Sudan – Non-Arab Darfuris’ published in August 2017 and noted that it relied significantly upon the fact-finding report mentioned above. The judge also noted at [29] that the CPIN report contained various references to a document which the judge referred to as ‘the Australian Report 2016 (DFAT)’. This is a reference to a report of the Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade dated ‘DFAT Country Information Report: Sudan’, dated 27 April 2016. The judge stated that he had read the whole of the DFAT report.
7 The judge considered a particular submission made on behalf of the appellant regarding the weight to be attached to the fact-finding report, as follows:
“31. Ms Patel criticised the anonymised sources in the CPIN. However, broadly speaking the underlying joint report is well-sourced so that this is not a fundamental flaw. Both the joint report and DFAT rely on a number of different sources which reassures me that there has been some wide consultation. These include governmental and non-governmental sources; some of them based in or with connections to Sudan, others less directly placed. There were also human rights activists and lawyers consulted.
32. I take no issue with the reliance on diplomatic sources or the lack of an NGO presence going to weight in the joint report. I noted that there is a British Embassy letter in the CPIN. Such issues have been comprehensively dealt with in IM and AI (Risks – Membership of Beja Tribe, Beja Congress and JEM) Sudan CG [2016] UKUT 00188 (and the judge then set out a quote from paragraph 199 of that decision).
33. There is nothing fundamentally wrong with relying on either diplomatic sources or NGO’s who do not have a presence in Sudan, particularly given the difficulties NGO’s face there. I do not consider these issues are fundamental flaws or reduce weight.
34. I note the joint report starts off with a disclaimer:
‘This report was written in accordance with the European Asylum Support Office (AESO) Country of Origin Information (COI) reporting methodology. The report is based on approved notes from meetings with carefully selected interlocutors. Statements from all interlocutors are used in the report and all statements are referenced. This report is not a detailed or comprehensive survey of all aspects of the issues covered in the terms of reference and should be considered alongside other available Country of Origin Information on the situation of persons from Darfur and the two areas in Khartoum Sudan. The information contained in this report has been gathered and presented with utmost care. The report does not include any policy recommendations or analysis. The information in the report does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the Danish Immigration Service or the UK Home Office. Furthermore this report is not conclusive as to the determination or merit of any particular claim for protection which will need to be considered on its individual facts. Terminology used should not be regarded as indicative of a particular legal position.’
35. The introduction to the report sets out the methodology etc:
‘… The terms of reference for the mission were drawn up by DIS and the UK Home Office in consultation with the Danish Refugee Appeals Board as well as a Danish advisory group on COI. The terms of reference are included at Appendix C to this report.
In the process of compiling the report the delegation consulted with 29 sources comprising representatives from international organisations, academics, local and international, non-governmental organisations (NGOs), western embassies, journalists, an international consultant and the Sudanese authorities. The UK Embassy in Khartoum provided assistance in identifying some interlocutors relevant to the terms of reference. The sources interviewed were selected by the delegation based on the expertise, merit and role relevant to the mission. 28 of the sources were consulted during the missions to the three countries. One of the sources the London based NGO was consulted in London. The delegation also attempted to meet Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch in Nairobi. However the HRW representative was not available at the time of the delegation’s visit whilst Amnesty International declined the invitation to meet.’
36. I can only take the report at face value but what I have read satisfies me that the report has been based on sound methodology using a wide range of appropriate sources. The various opinions generally both positive and negative are set out in the joint report and a summary which had been agreed by the contributors appended to the report. I have previously read the entire 122 page report carefully.”
8 The judge thereafter at [37-38] sets out various extracts from the CPIN Report. In particular, at [37], the judge quotes from paragraph 2.3.10 of the CPIN:
“25.3.10 Sources - primarily information obtained by a joint Danish-UK fact finding mission of early 2016, an Australian government report of April 2016, and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office - indicate that there is a significant and established population of (non-Arab) Darfuris living in Khartoum and surrounding areas.”
9 At [38] the judge quotes from paragraph 5.2.16 of the CPIN report, which itself refers to a September 2016 letter from the British Embassy Khartoum. At [39] the judge sets out certain passages from the DFAT report regarding its own methodology, and states at [40]:
“I am satisfied that there were no obvious concerns about bias or methodology flaws in the report. Whilst the report was commissioned in 2016, there is nothing to suggest that it was not conducted independently by the Australians (i.e. distinct from the joint report). I was able to attach...
To continue reading
Request your trial