A black background with a black square
Description automatically generated with medium confidence
IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER |
Case No: UI-2025-001294 |
|
First-tier Tribunal No: PA/62578/2023
|
THE IMMIGRATION ACTS
Decision & Reasons Issued:
22
nd May 2025
Before
UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE KAMARA
DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE
BARTLETT
Between
SMR
(ANONYMITY ORDER MADE)
Appellant
and
SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent
Representation
:
For the Appellant: Ms Appiah
For the Respondent: Ms N Kerr
Heard at Field House on 16 May 2025
Order Regarding Anonymity
Pursuant to rule 14 of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008, the appellant is granted anonymity.
No-one shall publish or reveal any information, including the name or address of the appellant, likely to lead members of the public to identify the appellant. Failure to comply with this order could amount to a contempt of court.
DECISION AND REASONS
1.
The appellant made a claim for asylum on 9 February 2022. On 22 November 2023 the respondent refused the appellant's application and the appellant subsequently appealed to the First-tier Tribunal. In a decision dated 31 January 2025 uploaded on 3 February 2025 the judge of the First-tier Tribunal rejected the appeal on all grounds.
2.
The appellant made an application for permission to appeal which was granted on all grounds by the First-tier Tribunal on 14 March 2025.
3.
The grounds of appeal set out for four grounds of appeal which are as follows:
- Ground one - the judge made a material error of law by requiring corroborative evidence;
- Ground two - the judge failed to weigh the appellant's evidence about his cousin's alleged power or influence;
- Ground three - the judge did not consider the appellant' sister's witness statement and/or the core of the appellant's claim;
- Ground four - article 8 ECHR private life was not adequately considered including the care the appellant provided for an elderly gentleman. More specifically the judge was said to have failed to have considered evidence in the form of witness statements, certificates of achievement and section 117B of the 2002 Act.
Decision
Grounds one and two
- Ms Appiah's submissions were that Grounds 1 and 2 and to some extent ground 3 can be read together. Grounds one and two assert that the judge made an error of law by requiring corroborative evidence generally and specifically in respect of the appellant's claim that he made a report to the police.
- The Court of Appeal in TK (Burundi) v SSHD [2009] EWCA Civ 40 recognised that in assessing the credibility of an asylum claimant, absence of supporting evidence from individuals whom it was reasonable to expect to provide supporting evidence, was a relevant factor in assessing credibility. At paragraph 16 the judge set out "
the A claims that he made reports to the police but that they refuse to take any action this is contrary to the objective evidence that the authorities and the government do take this seriously. In any event A has not provided evidence that he actually did lodge a complaint with the authorities which was subsequently not investigated." It is clear from this paragraph that the judge taking the appellant's claims at face value, that he did make the report to the police, found the claim that the police took no action to be contrary to the objective evidence. We note that there is no submission that this finding is materially flawed or not open to the judge.
- At paragraph 16 the judge assessed the appellant's evidence and found that it suggests his cousin no longer holds any power in the country. This was a finding that was open to the judge on the evidence before him. We find that the judge carried out a holistic assessment of the evidence before him and found that the appellant's assertion lacked sufficient evidential support. This is the correct legal approach and the findings he made were open to him.
- Ms Appiah submitted that the judge erred in finding that the appellant's Facebook evidence is not credible. We were referred to a small number of pages in the bundle which are printouts from a Facebook account. It is far from clear on the face of them, that this evidence establishes that the appellant's cousin is a politically or socially influential person in the Philippines. There is no evidence before us that any sort of explanation about what the Facebook evidence was supposed to or did show was made at the First-tier Tribunal. We find that the judge made findings that were open to him on the evidence, he did not stray into impermissibly requiring corroborative evidence and he did not commit material errors of law. These grounds of appeal are rejected.
Ground three
- Ms Appiah's submission is that the judgement makes no specific reference to the witness statement of the appellant's sister which was included in the bundle in front of the judge. We note that the appellant's sisters written evidence is in the form of a letter, it is not a witness statement because it does not comply with the requirements for witness statements and she did not appear in person.
- At paragraph 8 the judge referred to the documents in support of the party's case. At paragraph 14 the judge sets out that he considered all of the evidence in the appeal. The judge did not set out every piece of documentary evidence which he considered. Judges are not required to set out every piece of evidence they have considered MK (Duty to give reasons) Pakistan [2013] UKUT 641. Failure to list the appellant's sisters' letter in the judgement is not an error of law.
- Further, the appellant's sister's witness statement covers the same matters that are set out in the appellant's witness statement. This was accepted by Ms Appiah. We consider that the letter is somewhat vague and in these circumstances it cannot be said that it is such an important part of the evidence that it needed to be specifically referenced by the judge. This ground of appeal is rejected.
Ground Four
- Ms Appiah's submissions were to the effect that the article 8 ECHR assessment was inadequately reasoned. Ms Appiah accepted that even if there were any arguable errors she may struggle to establish that any errors were material.
- Ms Appiah accepted that there was no freestanding argument about very significant obstacles and that this would stand or fall with the protection claim. As we have found that there were no errors of law in relation to the protection claim any submission related to very significant obstacles must fail.
- The judge's article 8 ECHR assessment is set out at paragraphs 19 and 20. We recognise that it is a concise assessment, however we also recognise that this is a case that would warrant a concise assessment given the facts. The judge considered whether the respondent's decision was disproportionate and unarguably correctly gave little weight to the appellant's private life. We find that the judge's reasoning was legally sufficient. This ground of appeal is rejected.
- We find that there are no material errors of law.
Notice of Decision
The Decision of the First Tier Tribunal dated 31 January 2025 and uploaded on 3 February 2025 does not contain an error of law and stands.
J Bartlett
Deputy Judge of the Upper Tribunal
Immigration and Asylum Chamber
22 May 2025