Upper Tribunal (Immigration and asylum chamber), 2021-08-11, LP/00139/2020
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Date | 11 August 2021 |
| Published date | 31 August 2021 |
| Hearing Date | 08 July 2021 |
| Status | Unreported |
| Court | Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) |
| Appeal Number | LP/00139/2020 |
Appeal Number: LP/00139/2020
Upper Tribunal
(Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: LP/00139/2020
THE IMMIGRATION ACTS
|
Heard at Manchester (via Microsoft teams) |
Decision promulgated |
|
On 8 July 2021 |
On 11 August 2021 |
Before
UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE HANSON
Between
FODAY DABOH
(Anonymity direction not made)
Appellant
and
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent
Representation:
For the Appellant: Ms S. Khan instructed by Broudie Jackson Canter Solicitors.
For the Respondent: Mr Tan, a Senior Home Office Presenting Officer.
DECISION AND REASONS
-
The appellant is a citizen of Sierra Leone, born on 3 January 1975, who appeals against the decision of First-tier Tribunal Judge Cole (‘the Judge’), who dismissed his appeal against the refusal of his protection appeal or for leave to remain in the United Kingdom on any other basis, promulgated on 31 March 2020.
-
The appellant’s application for permission to appeal was refused by a Resident Judge of the First-tier Tribunal but granted on a renewed application by a judge of the Upper Tribunal, the operative part of the grant being in the following terms:
This is an unusual case, in which the appellant claims to be at risk as a result of his association with his former employer in Sierra Leone. That risk is said to have increased significantly as a result of the appellant having given evidence before the High Court in London in 2018. Judge Cole accepted all that he said and found that he would be at risk on return to his home area for these reasons. The judge concluded that any risk to the appellant in a place of relocation was too remote, however, and dismissed his appeal on grounds of internal relocation. I am satisfied that it is arguable that the judge erred in reaching that conclusion, in that he arguably left out of account the matters noted in grounds one and two. I consider grounds three decidedly less impressive, but it is just arguable that the judge left out of account the relevant background material in concluding that relocation would be reasonable. In the circumstances, permission is granted on all three grounds.
-
At [53 – 54] of the decision the Judge wrote:
53. I therefore find that the appellant would be safe in Lungi, Pepple or Freetown. Thus, it is necessary to assess whether it would be reasonable for him to relocate. The Appellant asserts that he will be unable to find work and housing in another part of Sierra Leone. I accept that this may be difficult for the Appellant, especially as he worked for one employer for such a long time. However, the Appellant clearly has skills having worked as a carpenter and doing building works as well as working as a driver. He has no significant health problems or other impediments. There is no evidence to suggest that the Appellant would not be able to find work to support himself and his family if they were to relocate to the capital, Freetown, or another part of Sierra Leone. I find that relocation may be difficult, but it will not be unduly harsh and it would not be unreasonable.
54. Therefore, in summary, I find that the Appellant is a generally credible witness who has established to the lower standard of proof that he will be at real risk of serious harm in his hometown of Bumbuna. However, I find that internal relocation to somewhere such as Freetown, Lungi or Pepple would be safe and reasonable for the Appellant.
Error of law
Background
-
As noted by the judge granting permission this is an unusual case. In addition to the appellant’s activities in Sierra Leone he was also a witness in a case in the Administrative Court in the UK, reported as Kadie Kalama & Ors v African Minerals Ltd & Ors [2018] EWHC 3506 (QB), in which Turner J dismissed claims arising from African Minerals Ltd (AML) mining activities in Tonkolili in Sierra Leone. The appellant was one of the witnesses for AML before the High Court and his evidence is referred to in that judgement.
-
The appellant relies on three grounds of challenge to the Judge’s decision. Ground 1 challenges the reasonableness of internal relocation by reference to the situation in Sierra Leone and cross-references to aspects of the decision of the High Court before concluding at [25]:
25. It is therefore submitted the FTT has erred in its finding that A’s fear of being identified in all locations is “speculative”: given period of time A was visibly employed by and associated with AML in all three locations, Lungi, Pepel and Freetown, given the acceptance of the high profile. AML had within Sierra Leone as a result of its business activities within the country and the High Court challenge against it, and of the clear resentment held by members of the Bumbuna community against AML and the threats made against witnesses, it is submitted that rather being “remote” A has established to the low standard the real possibility of being identified in all locations, of that information being sent back to Bumbuna, and thus placing A at real risk in all potential identified locations from members of the Bumbuna community, of whom, the FTT has accepted, A has established he has a well-founded fear of persecution. It is reasonably submitted the FTT has erred in reaching its finding on the safety of A relocating to the identified locations.
-
Ground 2 refers to the appellant’s political profile and that when employed by AML, during the 2012 Presidential Elections, the appellant campaigned for the APC candidate Mr Koroma; although that party lost in the 2018 elections to the SLLP. Since then, it is stated there has been violence against APC members and supporters. The appellant’s past political activities were accepted as being credible by the Judge who is criticised for providing no reasoning for finding the appellant will not be perceived as a high-level support of the APC. It is also asserted the Judge failed to consider or provide adequate reasons for rejecting the appellant’s claim during 2012 he went from department to department within the AML. It is also asserted at [32] of the Grounds:
32. Thirdly, A’s evidence is that his political profile would not solely be limited to his explicit activities in the 2012 election. His political profile, imputed or otherwise, will be based on his high-profile association with AML having acted as their defence witness in the high-profile High Court case, together with his previous role as the chairperson of a five-member committee associated with the company. Given the findings by the Administrative Court confirming the close association between the former APC Government and AML, and given the acceptance by the FTT of ongoing political violence within Sierra Leone against APC supporters, it was A’s evidence that the risk he faced based upon his political opinion was a result of both his past activities and his association with the AML, themselves associated closely with the APC. The failure of the FTT to consider this material evidence amounts to an error of law.
-
Ground 3 refers to the reasonableness of relocation and the appellant’s evidence that to obtain employment depends upon having contacts and that without links to an area employment is not possible. It is stated, it was not disputed that the appellant’s only previous connection within the three suggested relocation locations was based on his past employment with AML and is not disputed that the employment with AML no longer exists. At [37] of the grounds the appellant writes:
Having found A to be generally credible, no reasoning has been provided as to why A’s evidence on this matter is not accepted. The failure to provide any reasoning as to why A’s evidence is disputed amounts to an error of law, as is the failure to consider material evidence.
-
Ms Khan in her submissions relied upon the pleaded grounds and argued that what was required was a fair and holistic assessment of all the issues which are interrelated, which makes internal relocation unreasonable.
-
. Mr Tan on behalf the Secretary of State accepted the final submission regarding the issues being entwined, but submitted the Grounds are no more than an attempt to reargue the case as the Judge set out the submissions at [38] in which there is specific reference to the points made in Grounds including that regarding the publicity in the case and the link to the company and link to the APC political movement. It is also submitted that many of the points relied upon by the appellant are set out by the Judge at [40] and that the Judge accepted there was a real risk to the appellant in his home area and needed to look at the risk in other areas as part of the reasonableness assessment. It is argued that that is what the Judge did, and no legal error arises. It is argued that the challenge is, in reality, a rationality challenge to the Judge’s conclusions which have not been shown to be irrational or outside the range of those available to the Judge on the evidence.
-
Mr Tan argued the Judge took into account the appellant’s political activities and his role within the company, which was when he was based in Bumbuna. It is not disputed the appellant is no longer politically active or committed to politics, which means that if he internally relocates he...
To continue reading
Request your trial