(Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: PA/00239/2019
THE IMMIGRATION ACTS
Heard at Field House, London Decision & Reasons Promulgated
On the 1 st August 2019 On the 16 th August 2019
DISTRICT JUDGE MCGINTY
SITTING AS A DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE
MR SAJAD YAQUBI
(No Anonymity Direction made)
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
For the Appellant: Miss Heidar (Counsel)
For the Respondent: Mr Melvin (Senior Home Office Presenting Officer)
DECISION AND REASONS
" 30. I therefore find that the Appellant is essentially relying on the same facts which have already been the subject of the previous determination of the First-tier Tribunal who found at the date of the First-tier Tribunal's decision, that the Appellant does not have a well-founded fear of persecution in Afghanistan and could be returned safely. I take as my starting point that this is the authority of assessment of the Appellant's status as at the time of the First-tier Tribunal Judge's decision which was heard on the 11 th September 2015.
31. I find that the question that I now have to decide is whether at the present point in time, after the First-tier Tribunal's decision, the situation is such that, taking into account the current situation in Afghanistan, the United Kingdom would be in breach of its obligations under the Refugee Convention and Humanitarian Protection if it were to return the Appellant to Afghanistan ".
"37 . The Appellant's sister returned to Afghanistan in 2012 for a holiday. I do not find it credible that she would go to Afghanistan for a holiday, a country which the Appellant claims is dangerous, if she and her husband had no family in that country to visit. I find that the Appellant does have family and others in Afghanistan who will assist him in settling down. I have considered the evidence that the Appellant went to the Red Cross who said that they cannot trace his family. That does not mean that he does not have any family there. Even if he does not have any family in Kabul, the Appellant will be able to find employment and settle down.
38. As to the issue of sufficiency of protection, I bear in mind that in general if a person cannot establish a real risk of serious harm, the question of whether there is a sufficiency or insufficiency of protection against that harm does not arise. I find that it would be reasonable and not unduly harsh for the Appellant to do so. The Appellant is an Afghanistan national, is educated to GCSE level and in good health. He speaks the local language and has worked in this country and this will assist him to reintegration into his home country ".
" our findings above show that it is not generally unsafe or unreasonable for a single healthy man to internally relocate to Kabul. However, we emphasise that a case by case consideration of whether internal relocation is reasonable for a particular person is required by Article 8 of the qualification directive and domestic authorities including Januzi and AH (Sedan). When doing so, we consider that there are a number of specific factors which may be relevant to bear in mind. These include, individually as well as cumulatively (including consideration that the strength of one factor may counteract and balance a weakness of another factor):
(i) age, including the age at which a person left Afghanistan;
(ii) nature and quality of connections to Kabul and/or Afghanistan;
(iii) physical and mental health;
(iv) language, education and vocational skills ".
My Findings on Error of Law and Materiality
Notice of Decision
The decision of First-tier Tribunal Judge Chana does not contain a material error of law and is maintained.
No Order is made for anonymity, no such Order having been sought before the First-tier Tribunal and no such Order having been sought before myself.
District Judge McGinty
District Judge McGinty sitting as a Deputy Upper Tribunal Judge Dated 6 th August 2019