United Kingdom Immigration and Asylum (AIT/IAC) Unreported Judgments

 

Upper Tribunal

(Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: AA/07215/2014

 

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Heard at Field House	Decision & Reasons Promulgated
On 5 th April 2016	On 22 nd April 2016

 

 

Before

 

DEPUTY upper tribunal JUDGE RENTON

 

Between

 

Ss

(ANONYMITY DIRECTION MADE)

Appellant

 

and

 

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT

Respondent

 

 

Representation :

 

For the Appellant: Mr P Turner, Counsel, instructed by Sunrise Solicitors

For the Respondent: Mr S Kandola, Home Office Presenting Officer

 

 

DETERMINATION AND REASONS

 

Introduction

1.              The Appellant is a female citizen of Pakistan, born on 7 ^th May 1981. The Appellant first arrived in the UK on 9 ^th August 2007 when she was given leave to enter as a student until 11 ^th August 2009. A number of subsequent applications for leave to remain were refused, and following her arrest in January 2013, the Appellant applied for asylum on 5 ^th July 2013. That application was refused for the reasons given in the Respondent's letter of 4 ^th September 2014. The Appellant appealed, and her appeal was heard by Judge of the First-tier Tribunal Mathews (the Judge) sitting at Stoke-on-Trent on 24 ^th August 2015. He decided to dismiss the appeal on asylum, humanitarian protection, and human rights grounds for the reasons given in his Decision dated 13 ^th September 2015. The Appellant sought leave to appeal that decision, and on 15 ^th November 2015 such permission was granted.

Error of Law

2.              I must first decide if the decision of the Judge contained an error on a point of law so that it should be set aside.

3.              The Appellant's case was that she had worked at a firm of solicitors where the proprietor, Mr A, had been involved in illegal immigration. Following her arrest in January 2013, the Appellant had agreed to be a witness against Mr A. As a consequence, she had been harassed and had received threats from him which she had reported to the police. Mr A was very well connected politically in Pakistan. He was a best friend of the former Prime Minister Rajah Pervaiz Ashraf. The Appellant's mother had been visited by a gang of men acting on behalf of Mr A. The Appellant feared that if she returned to Pakistan, Mr A would use his political connections to seek revenge upon her with impunity.

4.              At the hearing before him, the Judge heard evidence from the Appellant, the Appellant's brother SKAA, and NL, a retired detective constable who had been involved in the prosecution of Mr A. The Judge also had before him expert evidence from Dr Ballard. However, the Judge found much of the evidence lacking in credibility and was not satisfied that Mr A had the political connections claimed. The Judge identified various discrepancies in the evidence, and noted that the Appellant had delayed considerably in seeking protection in the UK. He also found some of the evidence implausible. The Judge was satisfied that Mr A had sought to intimidate witnesses in the UK, but the Judge found that the Appellant would have recourse to adequate protection in Pakistan in accordance with the decision in KA and Others (Pakistan) CG [2010] UKUT 216.

5.              At the hearing before me, Mr Turner argued that the Judge had erred in law in coming to his decision. The Judge had failed to give adequate reasons for his adverse credibility finding. He had attached insufficient weight to the evidence of NL. The Judge had also failed to consider the Appellant's evidence in the light of the background country information concerning the control which the MQM had in Karachi. Again, the Judge had failed to give sufficient weight to the expert evidence of Dr Ballard, and had failed to properly evaluate the FIR contained amongst the Appellant's documents. The Judge had not engaged with all of the evidence.

6.              In response, Mr Kandola referred to the Rule 24 response and argued there was no such error of law. The grounds relied upon by the Appellant were no more than a disagreement with the findings of the Judge. The Judge had considered the evidence comprehensively, and had given adequate reasons for his finding.

7.              I find no error of law in the decision of the Judge which I therefore do not set aside. I agree with the argument of Mr Kandola that the grounds relied upon by the Appellant amount to no more than a disagreement with the Judge's findings. The Judge carried out a thorough and careful analysis of all of the evidence before him and explained adequately why he found the Appellant not to be at risk on return to Pakistan. The Judge identified discrepancies in the evidence, and was entitled to take into account the Appellant's delay in seeking protection. The Judge dealt with the evidence of NL at paragraph 23 of the Decision, and the FIR at paragraphs 28 to 31. The Judge dealt with the expert evidence at paragraphs 33 to 37. The Judge was entitled to take the view of that evidence which he did, and he explained why. The Judge gave the correct burden and standard of proof at paragraph 10 of the Decision and it is apparent from reading his Decision that he applied it.

8.              For these reasons I find no error of law in the decision of the Judge.

Notice of Decision

9.              The making of the decision of the First-tier Tribunal did not involve the making of an error on a point of law.

I do not set aside that decision.

The appeal to the Upper Tribunal is dismissed.

Anonymity

10.          The First-tier Tribunal made an order for anonymity which I continue for the reasons given in paragraph 2 of the Judge's Decision.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Signed Dated

 

 

Deputy Upper Tribunal Judge Renton