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

(v)     A person with a support network or specific connections in Kabul is likely to be in a more advantageous position on return, which may counter a particular vulnerability of an individual on return. A person without a network may be able to develop one following return. A person's familiarity with the cultural and societal norms of Afghanistan (which may be affected by the age at which he left the country and his length of absence) will be relevant to whether, and if so how quickly and successfully, he will be able to build a network.

  Previous Country Guidance

23.   The test in relation to the reasonableness of internal relocation is found summarised and discussed by the Court of Appeal in its judgment relating to the appeal against the previous Tribunal decision in AS (Afghanistan) at [61] to [68] ([2019] EWCA Civ 873). I have regard to the test as there discussed and articulated. I do not need to set that out. In short, the question for me is whether, on a holistic assessment of the circumstances which the Appellant would face on return to Kabul, it is reasonable and not unduly harsh for him to be removed there.

24.   As to the burden of proof which applies, I have regard to what is said at [48] and [49] in AS (Afghanistan) as follows:

" 48. In respect of whether it is reasonable for him to internally relocate, an evaluative and holistic assessment is required, as explained in Secretary of State for the Home Department v SC (Jamaica) [2017] EWCA Civ 2112 at [36] and by the Upper Tribunal in MB(Internal relocation - burden of proof) Albania [2019] UKUT 392 (IAC) where it was stated:

The burden of proof remains on the appellant, where the respondent has identified the location to which it is asserted they could relocate, to prove why that location would be unduly harsh, in line with AMM and others (conflict; humanitarian crisis; returnees; FGM) Somalia CG [2011] UKUT 445 (IAC), but within that burden, the evaluation exercise should be holistic. An holistic approach to such an assessment is consistent with the balance sheet approach endorsed later in SSHD v SC (Jamaica) [2017] EWCA Civ 2112, at paragraphs [40] and [41]. MM v Minister of Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Ireland (Common European Asylum System - Directive 2004/83/EC) Case C-277/11 does not impose a burden on the respondent or result in a formal sharing of the burden of proof, but merely confirms a duty of cooperation at the stage of assessment, for example the production of the country information reports.

49. We remind ourselves that, as stated in MB at [25]:

An over-emphasis on the overall burden of proof can be a distraction from that holistic assessment."

25.   Finally, I record that the Appellant accepts that no issue falls to be determined in relation to his private and family life in the UK under Article 8 ECHR. Mr Bradshaw expressly conceded that this was not a ground of appeal and if the Appellant were to fail in this appeal, he would need to make further submissions to the Respondent in that regard.

26.   With that framework firmly in mind, I turn to the relevant evidence.

AGREED FACTS AND ADDITIONAL FACTUAL EVIDENCE

27.   In light of the Respondent's position on the Appellant's claim (as set out at [18] above), I record the facts and issues as agreed:

"..2. The appellant in this matter is a 20-year-old male, an Afghan national and Sunni Muslim. His date of birth is 19 July 2000. The appellant was born and raised in Abkhul village, which is in Pul E Khumri district, Baghlan province.

3. The appellant lived in Abkhul with his mother, brother and sister, until his brother left Afghanistan. The appellant's father was associated with the Taliban and was killed in a bomb blast when the appellant was approximately 6 years of age. Following the appellant's father's death, the family was supported by the appellant's maternal uncle.

4. The appellant did not attend school in Afghanistan. He speaks Pashto but cannot read or write in that language. He has learned English in the United Kingdom and was able to sit GCSE's in May 2019.

5. After the death of the appellant's father, the Taliban sought for the appellant's brother to join them. The appellant's mother feared the appellant's brother would be successfully recruited, so, with the assistance of the maternal uncle, the appellant's brother left Afghanistan to go to Europe. The Taliban then sought to recruit the appellant from around one year before he left the country. They attended his house on several occasions seeking to recruit him.

6. At the material time, the Taliban forcibly recruited and abducted children, generally, and did so to provide suicide bombers. The Taliban acted with persistence, generally. As such, the appellant's account of abduction and the Taliban's attempt to use him as a suicide bomber is plausible and externally consistent. Further, it is plausible that the Taliban acceded to the appellant's refusal to go out as a suicide bomber and that he was escorted from the camp by a cook who was the appellant's father's friend. It is also plausible that the Taliban failed to guard the appellant properly, enabling him to escape.

7. The appellant's exit from Afghanistan was facilitated by his maternal uncle. The appellant left around April or May 2015, along with 7 or 8 other boys. He travelled via Iran, Turkey, Italy and France. He did not claim asylum in Italy or France as he was under the control of an agent. The appellant arrived in the UK on 3 August 2016 and claimed asylum the same day. He has been accommodated with a foster family in the UK since September 2016. The appellant attended his substantive interview on 9 October 2017. The respondent refused his asylum claim on 7 June 2019.

8. ....

9. In August 2019, the British Red Cross confirmed they had located the appellant's mother and sister, but the appellant has been unable to reach them via the contact numbers he was given. The appellant has, by chance, been able to re-establish contact with his brother, who is in the UK. Contact between them is ongoing.

10. The appellant's brother has previously claimed asylum in the UK on the basis of attempted recruitment by the Taliban and was found credible by Immigration Judge Callender Smith in a determination dated 24 January 2012. The appellant's brother's appeal was allowed on asylum and human rights grounds. Within his claim, the appellant's brother gives matching family history to that given by the appellant and also recounts their father's earlier involvement with the Taliban."

28.   I need to make two observations about that statement of the facts. First, as regards [10], as I have already observed, the claims made by SM and the Appellant are not entirely "matching" as asserted. The claim made by SM is not that the Taliban "attempted" to recruit him as asserted in that paragraph but that they had done so and he had escaped (in other words, much the same account as is now given by the Appellant). SM was asked to confirm this when he gave oral evidence before me and confirmed that his case was that he was detained by the Taliban but escaped. That question and reply caused obvious consternation to Mr Bradshaw as it appeared to undermine the Respondent's acceptance of the credibility of the Appellant's account. I indicated however that it was my understanding of the Respondent's position that, notwithstanding the discrepancy between SM's and the Appellant's account as to SM's past, that had no impact on the credibility of the Appellant's account as to what had befallen him before he left Afghanistan. Both representatives were content with that position.

29.   Second, in those circumstances, and in light of the Respondent's concession, the Appellant's account as set out above is accepted. In other words, it is accepted that:

(a)         The Appellant's father was previously involved with the Taliban and is now dead;

(b)         The Appellant was himself abducted by the Taliban to serve as a suicide bomber, managed to escape and fled Afghanistan thereafter, assisted by his maternal uncle;

(c)          The Appellant's mother and sister remain in Afghanistan, in his home area but, although they have been traced, the Appellant has been unable to contact them;

(d)        The Appellant's brother SM is in the UK and is entitled to remain as a refugee;

(e)         The Appellant left Afghanistan in 2015 when he would have been aged a little under 15 years;

(f)           The Appellant was uneducated in Afghanistan and although he speaks some Pashto, he cannot read or write in that language;

(g)         The Appellant has been educated in the UK since his arrival in August 2016, has learned English and is continuing his studies here.

30.   As indicated above, the Respondent having proposed that the Appellant's case should be taken at its highest, there was no need for me to hear from him. His written statements are taken as read. I refer to those as necessary below. I reiterate the Respondent's concession that, the Appellant's claim having been accepted to be credible in relation to what happened to him in his home area and therefore that the Appellant would be at risk there, the only issue to be determined is whether there is a risk on return to Kabul and whether it is reasonable to expect the Appellant to internally relocate there. If I conclude either that there is a risk on return to Kabul or that it is not reasonable to expect the Appellant to internally relocate there, then he is entitled to succeed on protection grounds.

31.   The Appellant deals with the prospect of return to Kabul in the Second Witness Statement as follows:

"..16. I am unable to return and relocate within Kabul as I know that there is a lot of insurgency in Kabul from the Taliban with suicide bombings and Kabul itself remains unsafe. Where would I return to? Kabul is no longer safe. There are daily attacks which I see in the media. It is not safe for those living in Kabul and I will be returned there."

32.   He expands on that position in the Fourth Witness Statement as follows:

"..10. I continue to fear my life and cannot return to Afghanistan. The Home Office considers Kabul to be safe for me to return to. I strongly disagree with this.

11. I see it in the media how Kabul as a city is insecure. It is not safe. There are always spontaneous random acts of violence in the capital city. The Taliban do not have a base in the capital city but continue to target the city for their acts of violence. Kabul the city is vastly different to villages. Kabul is modern and has developed immensely. It is seen as westernised by the Taliban. The Taliban does not accept the women leaving their houses without 'proper clothing' and without their heads/faces covered. The women in Kabul are much more modern and wear English clothes. The Taliban do not like children being in education and the fact that media channels streamed nationally in the country from Kabul portray them in a bad light. Therefore, Taliban target Kabul more and more frequently. They do not state when they will commit an act of violence and randomly bomb the capital to prove their point, but reality is that they harm and kill innocent civilians.

12. I am presently studying Access to Higher Education in Biology at Bourneville College. I wish to study Biomedical Science at undergraduate level in September 2021. I am taught in English in the UK and speak Pashto. If I were to be removed to Kabul then I would be at a disadvantage with my education as universities in Kabul are predominantly taught in Dari language, a language that I speak truly little and moreover I cannot read/write in Dari/Pashto. There are universities in Kabul that do teach in English, but reality is I cannot enrol into a university there as the qualifications I have obtained in school and further education from the UK will not be accepted there. I will not be eligible to enrol at any university.

13. I will struggle to live in Kabul alone. There is an increase in small crimes throughout the city. I read recently that someone was killed for a mobile phone. The looting in Kabul is at its highest. I have never been to Kabul. Similarly, I had never been to Birmingham until I entered the UK but comparing Kabul and Birmingham to each other the former remains unstable and dangerous compared to the latter. It is wholly unfair for me to rely on my brother [SM] to support me whilst he in the UK as given the present violence in Kabul I may not have a fixed address. Also, if I was to be removed to Afghanistan the phoneline connection is not good and I can lose contact with my brother again. Something which I do not want.

14. Kabul's crime rate is at its highest and the terrorist acts by the Taliban are much more frequent and unplanned. They target any area in Kabul they see fit. In the chaos I could be injured or harmed. The SSHD is aware of this but continue their stance of returning me to war torn Afghanistan."

33.   I do not place much if any weight on what the Appellant says about the security situation in Kabul. It is clear from his statement that his evidence is based only on media reports and possibly what he has been told by his expert. The Appellant has never been to Kabul. His brother has, so far as the evidence shows, never been there either and, in any event, has been in the UK for a considerable period. The Appellant does not have contact with any family members in Afghanistan and, so far as the evidence shows, has no family members in Kabul.

34.   I heard oral evidence from SM. I have dealt above with the answer he gave in relation to his own claim but that is not something which need concern me for the reasons there given.

35.   In addition to that matter, SM confirmed that he had last spoken to his mother and sister when he left Afghanistan about ten years ago. He had tried to find them but could not. He had tried to trace them through the Afghan communities in the UK. He was aware of the information emanating from the British Red Cross via his brother, but they had been unable to contact the family in Afghanistan.

36.   SM was asked about his own ability to provide support to the Appellant in the event that the Appellant were returned to Afghanistan. SM said that he has his own business but that has suffered during the lockdowns caused by the pandemic. His shop has been closed and he is struggling to pay his rent and other expenses. He said that he sometimes gives the Appellant small amounts of money ("£10, £20, £30") but would be unable to provide support via money transfers to Afghanistan. In addition, SM intends to get married next year to a woman in the UK. He says that thereafter he will not be in a position to support the Appellant as he will need to support his own family. Mr Tufan sought to undermine SM's evidence in this regard by cross-examination. However, SM was consistent in his answers and I accept his evidence that he is and would in the future be unable to provide the Appellant with financial support were the Appellant to be returned to Afghanistan.

37.   The Appellant says in the Fourth Witness Statement (at §12 as cited at [32] above) that he wishes to go on to study Biomedical Science at University later this year. The evidence in the initial Appellant's bundle about his educational achievements does not necessarily reflect this as being a realistic ambition. However, with the supplementary evidence to which I refer at [10] above, the Appellant has included letters from tutors who teach him now and have taught him in the past. There is a document confirming that the Appellant is currently undertaking a course entitled "Level 3 Access to Higher Education Diploma in Science" at Bourneville College which is due to come to an end in July 2021. There is a letter dated 22 October 2000 from Sarah Holmes who is the Head of the School dealing with that programme which reads as follows:

"[MIM] started at the college in September 2017. During his first year at the college I taught him for Enterprise, and despite initial language difficulties, he persevered and became a valuable member of the group. He worked with other members of his team to set up an enterprise project to raise money for a local charity. Although often quiet, he motivated other students in his group to achieve the aims of the project and maximise the profits they made.

[MIM] has worked his way up and is now studying towards an Access to Higher Education Diploma in Science, where I am delighted to be teaching him again. He is approaching this course with the same determination and perseverance as he showed when I first met him. He has improved his English language and academic skills considerably during this time, through hard work and diligence. He now demonstrates all of the necessary skills to succeed both at university and in his chosen career of biomedical science.

In the time that I have known him [MIM] has shown himself to be a dedicated and committed young man. Although things have not always been easy he works hard to overcome any difficulties and always does this with a smile, whilst ensuring that his peers (and teachers) are also doing well. He is one of the most caring and considerate students that I have the pleasure to work with. He has shown a high degree of resilience and conscientiousness and has made excellent use of the opportunities he has been given."

38.   That and the other evidence regarding the Appellant's educational achievements paints a picture of a determined young man who has persevered in the face of difficult circumstances. On the other hand, it also shows that the Appellant has been supported in his endeavours by his tutors.

39.   In terms of the other support from which the Appellant has benefitted since his arrival, he has been in the care of [SB], his foster mother. She has provided a letter dated 23 July 2019 (at [AB/6-7]). She provides a great deal of information about the Appellant's integration in the UK. She speaks of the Appellant's relationship with her two children; he is like an elder brother to them. Although the Appellant did not do well academically at school (which is consistent with the other evidence about his early years in the UK), she confirms that he is now "a keen learner" and determined to do well in his education.

40.   [SB] also provides evidence about the Appellant's character both now and when he arrived in the UK. That evidence is as follows:

"..During these initial weeks [following his arrival in the UK], [MIM] struggled to settle. At night [MIM] would sleep with the light on, he was very afraid of the dark and was fearful for his safety due to originally being placed with Men in Adult accommodation and the scary journey he had made to the UK.

...

[MIM] is an honest, polite, kind, generous and very well-mannered son. He is always thinking of others and is happy to go the extra mile. He has a very strong connection to his foster brothers and they both look up to him. He makes friends very easily as he is very approachable and always smiles. He has never taken anything for granted. He has remained consistent the entire time he has spent with our family, always abided by curfews, never late for appointments or meetings and happy to help around the home. Since joining our family he has thrived academically and has grown into a responsible caring respectful citizen. He is very disciplined, grown well in confidence and takes pride in himself."

41.   Whilst that evidence is consistent with what is said by the college tutors about the Appellant's resilience, it also suggests that the Appellant is used to following orders from others and that, if faced with extreme adversity, does become frightened (albeit I recognise that when he arrived in the UK, he was aged only just under 15 years and is now nearly 21 years).

BACKGROUND AND EXPERT EVIDENCE

42.   Mr Bradshaw confirmed my view that I do not need to have regard to the background evidence contained in the original Appellant's bundle as that pre-dates the guidance given in AS (Afghanistan).

43.   I have before me two reports of Mr Tim Foxley, the Expert Report dated 9 October 2019 and the Updated Expert Report dated 8 February 2021. Again, since Mr Foxley's initial report pre-dates the AS (Afghanistan) guidance, and he has in any event updated his opinion in the second report, I do not need to have regard to the first report.

44.   In terms of his expertise, Mr Foxley has been studying Afghanistan since 2001. He currently runs his own consultancy based in Sweden, focussing on Afghanistan. He is a research fellow with the European Foundation for South Asian Studies. He has a Masters degree in Peace and Conflict studies from Malmo University, specialising in Afghanistan. He has in the past completed temporary positions with the UK Foreign Office and MOD as an analyst and researcher into Afghan issues. He was based in Kabul for several months in 2006 and 2011 and has undertaken "several field trips and operational tours" there since 2002. Mr Foxley has provided expert evidence in a number of appeals involving Afghan asylum seekers although he was not one of the experts who gave evidence at either of the AS (Afghanistan) hearings. I am satisfied though that he has appropriate expertise in relation to the issues dealt with in his reports and that I can give weight to that evidence.

45.   As a starting point, Mr Foxley does not disagree with the guidance given in AS (Afghanistan). At [31] of the Updated Expert Report he summarises the change in the security situation in Kabul. He says that "[i]n the last year or so, the Taliban have reduced the number of mass-casualty terrorist attacks in Kabul". Although he assesses that they retain the capability to conduct such attacks, he notes that they have focussed on "targeted explosions and assassinations" against "low, middle and high profile male and female Afghan citizens and government officials, including journalists, civil and human rights activists, judges and doctors, as well as military and police personnel". In Mr Foxley's view, that change of approach may be a waiting game to judge what action the US will take in May 2021 when US troops are due to be withdrawn. Whatever the reason, and although Mr Foxley points out that the Appellant might be at risk from indiscriminate attacks from the Taliban and other groups, he does not suggest that the Taliban would target the Appellant in Kabul ([103]; [116]). Mr Foxley does point out though that there is "a growing violent crime wave in the capital" ([44]) but that assessment is based on only one press article from October 2020 and is not supported by any statistical analysis.

46.   Although not at risk of targeted attack, Mr Foxley points out at [61] that, "as a young man with limited schooling, no experience of the wider Afghanistan [sic] or operating as an independent adult, [the Appellant] is likely to struggle to seek assistance and to understand and respond to the security situation or other threatening situations as effectively as fully experienced adults might".

47.   Dealing with the reasonableness of return in general, Mr Foxley also points at [52] to a November 2020 analysis which suggests that 36% of the population of Afghanistan face "high level of acute food insecurity". He also there notes that "[t]he Corona virus is bringing additional pressure to bear on an already weakened healthcare system".

48.   In terms of return to Kabul in particular, Mr Foxley refers to three key challenges for "internally displaced Afghans" - lack of housing, access to food, and unemployment ([58]). He opines that the Appellant, with no support network in Kabul, would be dependent on assistance from the Afghan government, charities and NGOs which support is "low and unreliable".

49.   I do not place weight on Mr Foxley's report of verbal and physical abuse of returnees at the airport as that stems only from one article dating from 2017. The other information given directly to Mr Foxley is that the Appellant would be unlikely to attract attention.

50.   In terms of the support which might be offered to the Appellant, Mr Foxley notes at [59], that the International Organisation for Migration and charities provide advice, health checks, transportation, training and funds. There is a government run short-term reception facility but that offers only temporary support and accommodation.

51.   Mr Foxley also draws attention to the problems of trafficking and forced labour to which returnees in particular are vulnerable. Whilst it appears from the report that the problem is a long-standing one as the footnotes date back in some instances to 2014, Mr Foxley refers to NGO reporting of an increase in trafficking to which returnees and internally displaced persons are particularly vulnerable ([63]). The trafficking includes exploitation of young workers "in appalling work conditions". The Afghan government's performance in tackling trafficking has been the comment of a USDS 2020 report downgrading the country.

52.   Mr Foxley accepts that risks arising from "westernisation" are lower in Kabul. As Mr Foxley notes at [69], "Kabul is relatively cosmopolitan" and therefore "Western clothes, mannerisms and style are more commonplace than in the rest of the country". There may though be a risk of becoming a victim of crime based on perceived wealth ([71]) (although I note that the source of that comment dates back as far as 2012).

53.   In terms of accommodation, Mr Foxley points out at [85] that most of the available housing amounts to "informal constructs" which are not well constructed and do not have official position. They are described as "slums". The Afghan government is said to be trying to address lack of housing by "formalising informal settlements", but progress is slow.

54.   In Mr Foxley's view, the Appellant would only have access to education if he was able to afford private schooling although his support for that contention dates back to a 2015 report ([88]). There is though said to be a low quality of schooling across Afghanistan due to destruction of infrastructure, limited resources and a lack of qualified teachers.

55.   The already difficult employment situation is, unsurprisingly, said to be worse at the moment due to corona virus. There is no unemployment benefit as such. If the Appellant could not find work, he would be dependent on charity. Although there is an informal job market, that is said to be "plagued with numerous problems placing workers' health, safety and livelihoods at risks, such as hazardous working environments, very low paying jobs, harassment by city management authorities, and a lack of job security" ([94] - footnote [160]).

FINDINGS OF FACT AND DISCUSSION

56.   Having regard to the guidance in AS (Afghanistan) (which decision has now been upheld by the Court of Appeal), the evidence in this case and the Respondent's concessions recorded above, I make the following findings:

(1)    As conceded by the Respondent, the Appellant is at risk in his home area and cannot return there (see [30] above).

(2)    There is no real risk that the Appellant would be of interest to or targeted by the Taliban in Kabul (see [45] above).

(3)    There is no real risk of serious harm in Kabul falling within Article 15(c) arising from the general security situation there. I can give little if any weight to the Appellant's own evidence in this regard as it is based on media reports or possibly what he has been told by his expert ([33] above). His expert, Mr Foxley, accepts what is said in AS (Afghanistan). If anything, the view expressed in the Updated Expert Report is that, for whatever reason, the position has slightly improved ([45] above).

(4)    Whilst there may be some evidence of a growing violent crime wave, that evidence is limited and does not give a general picture of the situation ([45] above). The evidence is insufficient to show any general real risk that the Appellant would come to harm. The evidence of risk based on perceived wealth as a returnee from the UK is similarly limited ([52] above). In any event, any such assertion is inconsistent with the Appellant's case that he would be destitute on return due to his circumstances.

57.   Based on those findings, I conclude that there is no real risk to the Appellant on return to Kabul. I therefore turn to consider whether it is reasonable to expect the Appellant to internally relocate there.

58.   I accept that the Appellant will have no support from family members in Afghanistan. I accept, as was conceded by the Respondent, that, although the British Red Cross has managed to trace the Appellant's mother and sister in Afghanistan, the Appellant and SM have been unable to make contact with them using the phone number given ((§9) at [27] above). In any event, so far as the evidence shows, the Appellant's mother and sister remain in the Appellant's home area to where it is accepted that the Appellant cannot return.

59.   I accept SM's evidence that he would be unable to provide the Appellant with financial support were the Appellant to be returned to Afghanistan ([36] above). The Appellant has been living with a foster family since his arrival in the UK and remains supported by the authorities in the UK. The financial support which SM has given the Appellant since they regained contact is in the form of "pocket money" for incidental expenses and is not day to day financial support. SM is himself struggling due to the impact of the pandemic on his business and will, in the near future, have his own family to support as he intends to marry next year.

60.   I accept, as conceded by the Respondent, that the Appellant does not read or write in Dari or Pashtu ((§4) at [27] and (§12) at [32] above). The Appellant's evidence in this regard was not challenged by the Respondent. The Appellant does however speak Pashtu and also speaks English. That he has been able to learn English to a standard which has permitted him to advance to the level he has in his education is not only to his credit but also shows his ability to adapt. If he were returned to Afghanistan, therefore, I would expect that he would be able to pick up the languages spoken there fairly readily. SM gave his evidence in Pashtu and it was expected that the Appellant would give evidence also in that language had he given evidence. That suggests that he is fluent in his understanding and communication of that language.

61.   I accept that it is highly unlikely that the Appellant would be able to proceed with his university ambitions, at least in the short-term following return. Although the Appellant accepts that there are universities in Afghanistan which teach in English, the evidence suggests that he would be unlikely to be able to access either those universities or indeed those which teach in Pashtu or Dari. Mr Foxley says that the only education to which the Appellant might be able to gain access would be private. The evidence which is unchallenged is that the universities in Afghanistan are unlikely to accept the qualifications gained in the UK. In any event, the Appellant would have to find some means to support himself whilst studying. That is not a problem which he faces in the UK.

62.   I do not accept however that the inability to progress to higher education would render return of the Appellant to Kabul unreasonable. The unchallenged evidence is that the Appellant never went to school in Afghanistan. Whilst the loss of the opportunities which he has been given in the UK would no doubt be disappointing for him, he could have had no expectation of any education let alone higher education had he remained in Afghanistan.

63.   This brings me on, however, to what the Appellant would be expected to do on return to Kabul. I accept that he would have access to some temporary support in the form of short-term financial and accommodation assistance from NGOs and other organisations ([243] to [246] of AS (Afghanistan; see also [48] and [50] above). Thereafter, however, the Appellant would be left to fend for himself.

64.   It is at that point that the obstacles facing the Appellant's return become more obvious. He left Afghanistan as a child. He has never lived in Kabul. There is no evidence that he has ever worked there or indeed in his home village. There is little to no evidence of the Appellant's economic and cultural background. All that is said is that his father was a member of the Taliban. The family was supported by an uncle. There is no evidence that the Appellant undertook any form of work prior to leaving Afghanistan.

65.   Moreover, the Appellant comes from a village in Afghanistan. He does not come from a city. He has lived in a city in the UK. However, as he says in the Fourth Witness Statement (at (§13) at [32] above), life in Birmingham is a far cry from life in Kabul.

66.   As Mr Foxley points out, as a young man who left Afghanistan as a child, the Appellant will not know how society operates (see extract from report cited at [46] above). Whilst I do not accept (as I have already found) that the general security situation or violence in Kabul is such as to put the Appellant at real risk on return there, I do accept that it is relevant to the question of reasonableness of return for a young man with no understanding of how to avoid threatening situations.

67.   In terms of employment, without connections "stable and secure employment would be virtually impossible to obtain" ([234] of AS (Afghanistan)). The Appellant does not have connections, and nor does it appear from the evidence that he has a taskera. As indicated by the guidance in AS (Afghanistan) at [234] to [236] and [239] therefore, the Appellant would only be able to find employment in the informal job market. He would then be at the mercy of unscrupulous employers who look to exploit returnees, particularly young workers ([51] and [55] above).

68.   I accept that the evidence shows that the Appellant is a personable young man who is determined and resolute in the pursuing of his ambitions in this country which might be thought to assist him in obtaining the sort of manual, unskilled labour which is available in Kabul informally. However, in this country he has had support. He is used to being guided by others, be it his foster mother or his tutors.

69.   True it is that the Appellant faced a difficult and arduous journey to reach the UK. Again, that shows his resilience. However, even then, he was with others of his age and assisted (if that is the right word) by an agent. He was not on his own, left to his own devices, in a strange city of which he has no previous knowledge and with no understanding of what to do to get by. As I note above, Mr Foxley's evidence is that persons in this position are particularly vulnerable to exploitation ([51] and [55] above). Further, the Appellant has no work experience whether in the UK or Afghanistan to "present himself in a way that would attract employers" ([236] of AS (Afghanistan))

70.   I accept that there is available accommodation in Afghanistan, albeit of very poor quality ([231] to [233] of AS (Afghanistan) and [53] above). However, I return to the points made about employment above. The Appellant has no-one to guide him or to turn to in Kabul. He has never lived there. He left Afghanistan at a young age. He would find it extremely difficult to find accommodation by himself. Furthermore, he would need some means to fund such accommodation in the longer term.

71.   Fortunately, the Appellant has not been scarred by his previous experiences to the extent of developing mental health problems. According to the evidence, he has neither mental nor physical health problems which would increase his difficulties on return. However, the statement from [SB] (the Appellant's foster mother) suggests that the Appellant was traumatised when he first arrived in the UK ([40] above). He is now an adult whereas he was then a child. I do not place much weight on the evidence of the Appellant's trauma on arrival with his foster mother but it does indicate that the Appellant is perhaps not as resilient as the evidence might otherwise suggest.

72.   I have to carry out a holistic assessment of all the circumstances. There is no one factor which carries the day. However, as is indicated at (v) of the headnote in AS (Afghanistan), "familiarity with the cultural and societal norms" is a relevant factor when assessing reasonableness of relocation to Kabul for those with no support network or connections in that place. That lack of familiarity may arise, as here, because of the age the Appellant was when he left Afghanistan. Although the evidence is that the Appellant is a fairly resilient young man, he is able to be so with the support which he has in the UK. Faced with the unfamiliar territory of a city which he does not know, and with the extreme difficulties which he would face in obtaining employment and accommodation there with no support, I am (just) persuaded that it is not reasonable to expect the Appellant to internally relocate to Kabul. It would be unduly harsh to return him to that place. For that reason, the Appellant succeeds on Refugee Convention and Article 3 ECHR grounds.

DECISION

I allow the appeal on protection (Refugee Convention) and human rights (Article 3 ECHR) grounds.

Signed L K Smith Dated: 23 March 2021

Upper Tribunal Judge Smith