Upper Tribunal (Immigration and asylum chamber), 2020-02-26, PA/00521/2016 & Ors.
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Date | 26 February 2020 |
| Published date | 20 March 2020 |
| Hearing Date | 14 January 2020 |
| Status | Unreported |
| Court | Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) |
| Appeal Number | PA/00521/2016 & Ors. |
Appeal Numbers: PA/00521/2016
AA/13548/2015, AA/13688/2015
AA/13689/2015, AA/13690/2015
AA/13691/2015, AA/13687/2015
Upper Tribunal
(Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Numbers: PA/00521/2016
AA/13548/2015, AA/13688/2015
AA/13689/2015, AA/13690/2015
AA/13691/2015, AA/13687/2015
THE IMMIGRATION ACTS
|
Heard at Field House |
Decision & Reasons Promulgated |
|
On 14 January 2020 |
On 26 February 2020 |
|
|
|
Before
UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE PITT
Between
im
ny
hm
am
zm
lm
am
(ANONYMITY DIRECTION made)
Appellants
and
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent
Representation:
For the Appellant: Mr E Fripp, Counsel, instructed by Duncan Lewis & Co Solicitors
For the Respondent: Ms J Everett, Senior Home Office Presenting Officer
DECISION AND REASONS
Direction Regarding Anonymity – Rule 14 of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008
-
Unless and until a Tribunal or court directs otherwise, the appellant is granted anonymity. No report of these proceedings shall directly or indirectly identify him or any member of their family. This direction applies both to the appellant and to the respondent. Failure to comply with this direction could lead to contempt of court proceedings.
Background
-
This is an appeal against the decision issued on 17 September 2019 of First-tier Tribunal Judge Mill which refused the asylum and human rights appeals of the appellants.
-
The seven appellants are a family of Stateless Palestinians who were resident in Lebanon prior to their entry to the United Kingdom. The family comprises the father, IM, and mother, NY, and their five children, the oldest of whom is now an adult.
-
The second appellant and the children arrived in the UK on 6 February 2015 and applied for asylum on arrival.
-
IM arrived in the UK on 24 August 2015 and also claimed asylum on arrival.
-
The asylum claims of the second appellant and the children were refused by the respondent in a decision dated 30 November 2015. The first appellant’s claim was refused in a decision dated 5 January 2016.
-
All of the appellants appealed to the First-tier Tribunal. Their appeals were linked as they all relied upon the claim put forward by the appellant. For the same reason, in this decision I refer only to the appeal of IM (the appellant) in this decision.
-
The appeal has a somewhat complicated procedural history. It was dismissed by First-tier Tribunal Judge Anstis in a decision promulgated on 25 November 2016. Permission to appeal was granted by Upper Tribunal Judge Bruce in a decision dated 20 February 2017. The error of law decision came before Deputy Upper Tribunal Judge Chana who, in a decision issued on 19 May 2017, found no error of law in the decision of First-tier Tribunal Judge Anstis.
-
The appellant applied for permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal. On 26 July 2018, permission was granted by consent and the appeal remitted to the Upper Tribunal in order for a new decision on whether the decision of First-tier Tribunal Anstis disclosed an error on a point of law.
-
The appeal then came before Upper Tribunal Judge Blum and in a decision issued on 22 November 2018 he found a material error of law in the decision of First-tier Tribunal Judge Anstis and set it aside. The appeals were remitted to the First-tier Tribunal for a de novo hearing with no findings preserved.
-
The appeal then came before First-tier Tribunal Judge Mill on 9 September 2019. In the decision dated 17 September 2019 which is under challenger here, Judge Mill refused the appellant’s asylum and human rights appeal.
-
The appellant applied for permission to appeal to the Upper Tribunal. This was refused by Upper Tribunal Judge Martin in a decision dated 30 October 2019 but, on renewal, granted by Upper Tribunal Judge Coker in a decision dated 3 December 2019. Thus the appeal came for hearing before me on 14 January 2020.
-
The core of the appellant’s claim is that he lived in the Al Rashidiya refugee camp for the majority of his life. In 2014 he began working for the Palestinian Liberation Organisation/Fatah (Fatah). He was given funds of $400,000 to spend on refugees coming from Syria. In order to dispense this money he went to live in the Ein Al-Hilweh refugee camp. While he was living in Ein Al-Hilweh camp, the appellant visited a camp in an area of Lebanon called Arsal, close to the Syrian border. He did so of his own accord and without informing Fatah.
-
The appellant maintains that whilst working in Ein Al-Hilweh camp, at the beginning of December 2014 he was approached by an official of Jund Al-Sham, a militant Islamic group, and asked by this individual to register his family and others as Palestinian refugees from Syria and to give them funds of approximately $100,000. He also requested that the appellant work as a spy against Fatah. The appellant refused to co-operate. The official from Jund Al-Sham threatened to kill him and kidnap his wife and children. Fearing reprisals, the appellant returned immediately to Al Rashidiya camp with his family.
-
The appellant maintains that after he returned to Al Rashidiya camp, on 9 December 2014, the Lebanese Army stopped one of his brothers at the entrance to the camp, believing that he was the appellant. The appellant’s brother was questioned about the nature of the appellant’s work, whether he went to Arsal and whether he supported the Syrian people financially or provided them with weapons. The appellant maintained that his brother was questioned by various Lebanese intelligence agencies and by Hezbollah who believed that the appellant had been providing weapons to the Syrian opposition. The appellant’s brother was released after 24 hours.
-
The appellant maintains that when he next re-entered Al Rashidiya camp he was stopped and questioned by the Lebanese Army for about six hours. He states that he was released with the assistance of senior members of the Popular Committee of Fatah. The appellant maintains that he found out that the reason that he was detained was because of the suspicions that he had been assisting the Syrian opposition.
-
The appellant maintains that a few days later he was informed that the Lebanese authorities were looking for him and had requested that he hand himself over for the purposes of an investigation into a security matter. Believing that Hezbollah were behind this and that he would be seriously mistreated, he went to the leader of Fatah. He informed the leader about his visit to Arsal and was advised to deliver himself to the Lebanese authorities for investigation. At the same time the appellant also received calls from the Islamic Jihad Movement ordering him to deliver himself to the Lebanese authorities and threatening that his wife and children would be kidnapped if he did not do so.
-
The appellant maintains that he feared for his safety and the safety of his family. His wife’s father paid $40,000 to an agent to facilitate the journey of the appellant’s wife and children to the UK, having obtained visas for the USA. The appellant remained in hiding in Al Rashidiya camp while his father-in-law made arrangements for him to escape. The appellant escaped from the camp along the seacoast, went to Beirut, then to Tripoli where he met an agent who arranged for his journey to the UK via Turkey and Italy.
-
The appellant gave evidence at the hearing before First-tier Tribunal Judge Mill. He also relied on three bundles of documents. Those materials included a country expert report dated 8 November 2016 of Dr Alan George. It is of note that this report was before First-tier Tribunal Judge Anstis as long ago as 18 November 2016 when the appeal was first heard. The issues arising from the report of Dr George have been live since then. In summary, Dr George’s opinion was that the appellant’s claim was “very generally plausible” but subject to “very significant caveats and exceptions”; see paragraph 107 on page 281 of the appellant’s first bundle. Dr George also stated that aspects of the appellant’s claim troubled him “considerably”, those concerns being set out in paragraphs 117 to 122 on pages 283 to 285 of the appellant first bundle. Dr George also found, after making enquiries of personal contacts in Lebanon, that they provided a very different profile of the appellant as someone known to have fallen out with a volunteer in Al-Rashidiya camp who had given false information against him to the Lebanese intelligence services. This had led to the appellant’s arrest by Lebanese Army Intelligence, his release following intervention by the Palestinian Embassy; see paragraphs 123 to 129 on pages 285 to 286 of the appellant’s first bundle. Dr George identifies in paragraph 128 that the appellant’s evidence “conflicts very significantly with the information I have received from my contacts in the Rashidiya camp” but considered that the account from Lebanon was still capable of showing that the appellant would be at risk on return.
-
First-tier Tribunal Judge Mill made detailed findings on the credibility appellant’s claim. For the purposes of this error of law decision it is necessary to set...
To continue reading
Request your trial