Upper Tribunal (Immigration and asylum chamber), 2016-09-30, PA/00950/2015
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Date | 30 September 2016 |
| Published date | 24 June 2020 |
| Hearing Date | 28 July 2016 |
| Status | Unreported |
| Court | Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) |
| Appeal Number | PA/00950/2015 |
Appeal Number: PA/00950/2015
IAC-AH-SAR-V1
Upper Tribunal
(Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: PA/00950/2015
THE IMMIGRATION ACTS
|
Heard at Stoke |
Decision & Reasons Promulgated |
|
On 28th July 2016 |
On 30th September 2016 |
|
|
|
Before
UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE REEDS
Between
MA
(ANONYMITY DIRECTION MADE)
Appellant
and
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent
Representation:
For the Appellant: Mr A Pipe, Counsel instructed on behalf of the Appellant
For the Respondent: Mr C Bates, Senior 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. This direction applies both to the Appellant and to the Respondent. Failure to comply with the direction could lead to contempt of court proceedings.
-
The parties before the Tribunal both agreed that an anonymity direction should be made as the appeal concerned protection issues.
-
The Appellant, with permission, appeals the decision of the First-tier Tribunal (Judge Pacey) who, in a determination promulgated on 21st March 2016, dismissed his appeal against the decision of the Respondent for his deportation pursuant to Section 32(5) of the UK Borders Act 2007.
-
The Appellant’s immigration history can be summarised as follows. The Appellant claims to have entered the UK on 4th October 2000 and made an asylum claim on the same day. His claim was refused by the Secretary of State on 8th February 2001 and refused again, on reconsideration, on 13th July 2001. The Appellant appealed that decision which was heard by the First-tier Tribunal but his appeal was dismissed on in July 2002. There is a copy of that decision in the Respondent’s bundle at G1. The basis of the Appellant’s claim related to his political opinion and his membership and activity for a political party which was part of the monarchist movement. The judge considered the evidence that had been given by the Appellant relating to events in Iran including his arrest, detention and ill-treatment and escape but for the reasons given in that determination he did not find the Appellant’s account to be credible and rejected the factual basis of his claim. The judge reached the conclusion that the Appellant had not come to the attention of the authorities and that he would not be at risk of harm on return.
-
Following that decision, the Appellant remained in the United Kingdom. During the Appellant’s residence in the United Kingdom he has received a number of criminal convictions which have been summarised within the papers as having received 26 convictions for 43 offences. Those offences are set out in the refusal letter and a risk assessment report provided on behalf of the Appellant. The most recent conviction took place in November 2014.
-
On 15th January 2015, the Appellant was informed of his liability to deportation and on 6th February 2015 representations were submitted on his behalf setting out the reasons why he should not be deported (see M2). They included further representations relating to a protection claim (based on his political opinion and past history) and reliance on his circumstances in the UK (including his length of residence and his relationship with a British citizen and their family life).
-
On 12th June 2015 a deportation order was made and on 21st August 2015 the Respondent made a decision refusing a protection claim and a claim on human rights grounds (Article 8). The Appellant appealed against that decision and the appeal came before the First-tier Tribunal on 7th March 2016.
-
The basis upon which the Appellant’s case was advanced was set out by the judge within the determination. The Appellant feared persecution on return as a result of his support for a political party which he referred to as “Azadi” and that this was part of the royalist (monarchist) movement. He had joined the party in 1997 (see paragraph [3] of original FtT determination). He set out his activities for that group, namely that he was distributing leaflets and spraying the political emblem of the movement on the streets. He maintained that he was detained, questioned, beaten and tortured but had escaped from Iran when a nurse in the hospital he was in confided to him about his own opposition to the regime and helped him escape. In essence, the Appellant relied upon the same factual background that had previously been relied upon when making his original asylum claim in the year 2000. As the First-tier Tribunal Judge observed at paragraph [8] the previous judge had not accepted the account given and in particular that he did not accept that the Appellant had escaped from detention and neither did he believe that he had been arrested and detained in the first place. Thus as the judge recorded at [9] the Appellant, within the deportation proceedings, sought to re-open the asylum claim based on fresh evidence which was the provision of an expert report.
-
As to his Article 8 claim, the Appellant relied upon his length of residence and the private life he has established in the United Kingdom since his arrival in or about October 2000 and also relied upon the establishment of a family life with his partner. It was not disputed by the Respondent that he was in a relationship, nor that the Appellant had established a private and family life. The Appellant also relied upon evidence relevant to his criminal offending, namely a risk assessment which concluded that he represented only a low risk of harm to others and that there was a low risk of re-offending. There was also evidence he relied upon which demonstrated that he was now free of drug addiction.
-
As to the relationship between the Appellant and his partner, it was accepted by the Respondent that she could not go with him to Iran for the reasons set out at [12]. Evidence was given in relation to their business and the effects upon his partner if the Appellant was deported. It was noted that there were no children of that relationship.
-
The judge heard evidence from the Appellant and his partner and took into account the bundles of documentation provided on behalf of the Appellant and the material provided on behalf of the Respondent.
-
In a determination promulgated on 29th June 2015 the judge dismissed his appeal on protection and human rights grounds and thus dismissed his appeal under the UK Borders Act 2007.
-
The judge’s findings can be summarised as follows. In relation to his protection claim, the judge applied the principles set out in the case of Devaseelan [2002] UKIAT 00702 and that the first determination of the Tribunal promulgated in July 2002 was the starting point but that the Appellant relied upon new evidence which entitled the judge to “reassess the asylum claim” (see paragraph [19]). The judge considered the expert report and its contents which referred to a risk on return if he were to engage in political activity with the relevant party. In particular, the judge made reference to paragraph [144] of the report where objective evidence suggested that activists did come to the attention of the authorities. The judge found that she was not concerned with “activists” in general but members of the group that the Appellant claimed to be a member of. The judge noted that the author of the report had no details of the group that the Appellant claimed to be a member of and that whilst the expert report at paragraphs [139] to [143] gave examples of persecution of activists, the judge found that the Appellant fell within a very different category from most of those referred to, namely that he had not taken part in any protests against the re-election of the president, he did not take up arms against the Islamic system, and that none of those referred to in the objective evidence set out by the expert appeared to have been members of the group which the Appellant claimed he was a member of.
-
The judge also took into account that the expert report recorded that Iranian royalist/monarchist opposition is not currently active, and further found on the evidence that the Appellant during his time in the United Kingdom (the past sixteen years) did not claim to have engaged in any monarchist political activities in the United Kingdom.
-
The judge considered the evidence relating to the existence of the political group that the Appellant claimed to be a member of. The judge found that having considered the evidence within the expert report, the author could find no evidence that such a group existed. Thus the judge found that if that was the case, he could hardly continue to be a member of such a group, even if it were accepted that he had been a member at any material time. The judge sought to distinguish the examples of ill-treatment of individuals affiliated with pro-monarchist groups on the basis that they were not members of the Azadi. Thus the judge found after consideration of the report that the evidence did not show that this...
To continue reading
Request your trial