A black background with a black square
Description automatically generated with medium confidence
Upper Tribunal
(Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: UI-2025-000633
First-tier Tribunal No: (PA/53960/2023)
THE IMMIGRA TION ACTS
Heard at Field House |
Decision & Reasons Issued |
On 8 April 2025 |
7 th May 2025 |
Before
UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE RIMINGTON
DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE J F W PHILLIPS
Between
SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Appellant
and
H.P.
Respondent
Representation:
For the Appellant: Ms J Norman, Counsel instructed by Barnes Harrild & Dyer
For the Respondent : Mr E Terrell, Senior Home Office Presenting Officer
DECISION AND REASONS
Introduction
1. This is an appeal against the decision of the First-tier Tribunal (Judge Wilsher) in which the Judge dismissed the appeal of the Appellant a citizen of Vietnam, against the Secr etary of State's decision to refuse his application for asylum and humanitarian protect ion.
2. The grounds of appeal to the Upper Tribunal assert that the First-tier Tribuna l Judge erred in law by giving insufficient or inadequate reasons, making findings that were not reasona bly open to him and erring in his assessment of the risk of re-trafficking. Permission to appeal was grante d by First-tier Tribunal Judge Seelhof f on 4 February 2025 on the basis that the gro unds were arguable.
Submissions
3. For the Appellant Ms Norman referred to t he grounds of appeal noting that th e Judge had accepted significant parts of the Appellant's account but suggesting that the Judge had not giv en sufficient reasons for adverse findings. The Appellant was accepted as a vulnerable witness and his core account was consistent. Having accepted that the App ellant was treate d poor ly by Mr Tan (th e person entrusted b y his father to look after him as a minor in Vietnam) there was no adequate reaso n given for th e finding that h e was not monitored . The Appel lant was being physically assaulted and threatened. The Judge states that sale of the family home must have meant that he wanted to come to the United Kingdom. This ignores th e fact that it was accepted that h e intended to join his father in Taiwan. There was no adequate reasoning f or the finding that the Appellant came to the United Kingdo m for economic betterm ent. The suggestion that the people smuggler s would behave with business acumen ignores the fact that people smugglers are likely to b e unscrupulous. In making findings the Judge did not tak e adequate account of t he Appellant's age. It w as wrong of the judge to refer to the Appell ant's long work history when in fact t his was childhood exploitation. So far as risk o f re-trafficking is concerned the Appellant meets most of the criteria with previous exploitat ion in Vietnam and working in nail bars in the U nited Kingdom and h aving no family support network in Vietnam.
4. For the Respondent Mr T errell said that although th e Appellant's account was broadly accepted it does not fol low that the Judge was bound to ac cept everything he said. There were still credibility issues and the Judge was entitled to find that some aspects were not true or exagger at ed. At paragraph 6 t he Judge give s adequate reasons. It is perfectly clear why Judge does not believe the Appellant. There is nothing perv erse in the Judge's findings and no basis on which to interfere . In respect of the second ground the Judge takes account of the Appellant's age at paragraph 4. He does not need to repeat this in every paragraph. The third groun d cannot succeed. There is no suggestion that the Appellant would need to go back to Mr Tan or in view of the other findings that he would be re-trafficked.
5. Ms Norman respond ed to say that it was wrong to conclude that the Appellant spoke to his father on more than one occasion without being over heard. It was not suggested that the Judge was obliged to accept everything. The Judge's concludes that it was "reasonable to infer" but this conflicts with paragraph 7 where he accept s that Appellant did not know much about the arrangements because his father mad e them. The Appellant was not certain that th e house sold for £20,000 and that £10,0 00 was raised by neighbours because his father made the arrangements. The inference of many conversations is unreasoned. There would not need to be more than on e occasion. This 15 year old was not micromanaging the sale of family home. When the Judge says it must have involved many conversations this is not adequate ly reasoned.
Discussion
6. The Appellant is a 22-year-old citizen o f Vietnam who arr ive d in the United Kingdom in October 2018 at the age of 15. The Appellant was encountered working in a nail bar the following month and taken into care by Lambeth Social Services . The Appellant attended a screening interview on 24 December 2018 and substantive interview on 20 January 2021. It was the Appellant's claim that he had been subjected to forc ed labour in Vietnam and had been trafficked to the Un ite d Kingdom and would be subjected to re-trafficking on ret urn. His application for protect ion was refused on 19 June 2023 and his appeal against refusal wa s dismissed following a hearing on 12 November 2024.
7. The first ground of ap peal asserts that the Judge did not g ive sufficient reasons w hy he found the Appellant's account of his inability to speak freely with his father when under control of Mr Tan, nor his treatment at the hands of agents not to b e credible, and not to a mount to trafficking. Further, the Judge did not give adequat e reasons why he finds that the financial arrangements engaged in must mean that the Appellant was sent to the UK for eco nomic reasons by his father.
8. In our judgment this assertion is not made out . Ms Norman even accepted that th er e were occasions when he spoke without Mr Tan overheari ng; indeed that was accepted by the appel lant in his asylum interview. The Judge g ives very clear an d sustainable reasons (at paragraph 6) of the d ecision
I also find that he maintained regular contact with his father by phone (AIR Q85). He said in oral evidence that he was monitored by Mr Tan and could not speak freely about his ill- treatment. I find this is not credible. Over a thr ee-year period, it is clear he would have spoken without being overheard on occasions. Indeed, he was able to arrange with his father to get funds to support his trip to the UK throug h the help of an agent (AI R Q93-135). This involved the sale of the family home and must have involved many conve rsations about a great many issues. He was repeatedly unable to explain how he did this whilst being monitored. Furthermore, I find that he was not held by force (AIR Q87-91) and could have left. He was in contact with his father throughout and could have been moved to another house by the former if the problem was solely the conditions of living with the Tan family.
9. These reasons are further explained at paragr aph 7 where the amount raised by the Appellant's father and through relatives or neighbours is highlighted. It is in our judgement beyond peradventure th at a simple transfer to the c are of anoth er household, or even at the age of almost 16, to supported independent living woul d have been significantly less costly. Economic betterment is the o nly reasonabl e explanation f or th e expenditure of £30,000. Equally the expendit ure of such a sum is wholly inconsistent with the suggestion that the expected so lution, for thi s expenditure, was to jo in his father in Taiwan.
10. Given the above the remainder of the points raised in the first gro und are of little consequence. The Appellant was living in poor condit ions with Mr Tan. The First- tier Tribunal found that his father came to kno w about this and that mor e straightf orward and less costly options than to tr avel to the United Kingdom wit h people smugglers would have been available. The findings as a whole are clear an d sustainable and there is in our judgment no error of law.
11. The second ground, where it is asserted the findings were not reasonably open to the Tribunal, falls away with the first. In our judgement it was entirely reasonable and understandable given the evidence for t he Tribunal to find that the Appellant spoke to his father to l et him know about the conditions in which he was living and also communicated with his father regarding the arrangements made by his father for him to leave Vi etnam. These findings were manifestly open to t he Tribunal.
12. The third ground asserts an error of law in relation to the CPIN asserting that t he conclusion that the Appellant does not fit the profile of someone at risk of re- trafficking on return is wrong. In our judgment this assertion is not made out . Firstly the findings already made in respect of both Mr Tan and the agents ar e sustainable. Mr Tan was caring, if poor ly and exploitat ively, f or th e Appellant when he was a child. The Judge found and there ca n be no reasonable suggestion that th e Appellant would be forced in some way to go back to live with Mr Tan. Consideration of the CPIN was properly dealt with at paragraph 10
I have considered the CPIN 'Vietnam: Victims of Trafficking' 2020. I have found that this appellant was not trafficked and, in any event, apart from the lack of a family or support network, he does not show any other characteristics that might make him vulnerable to trafficking.
13. This reasoning cannot be described as inadequate. The prime issue is that this was a decision which quite clearly took into account all factors in the round before a conclusion was reached. The judge made findings on the conditions the appellant lived under in Vietnam and did not accept there was evidence that Mr Tan would seek in any way to locate the appellant. The appellant was no longer a minor, coul d speak the language and albeit in a less than caring situation had had experience o f working an d would be in receipt of the Home Office voluntary departure grant . The judge had already recorded that the exp ert re port stated that it was likely that the appellant could acquire new legal identity document[s] despite lacking current papers. Even if he had to go to his home district the judge found on sound reasoning 'neither Mr Tan nor a ny smugglers pose a threat to his safety' and 'Mr Tan has no wider influence or connections and would have no interest in pursuing the appellant. The Judge takes into account both negative and positiv e factors. It is a manifestly well-reasoned decision and in our judgment no error of law is made out.
Conclusion
14. The decision of the Fir st-tier Tribunal did not involv e the making of a material error of law. The decision of the First-ti er Tribunal stands.
Signed: Date: 4 May 2025
J F W Phillips
Deputy Judge of the Upper Tribunal