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

A black background with a black square Description automatically generated with medium confidence

 

IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER	Case No: UI- 2024-004277
	First-tier Tribunal No: PA/58267/2023

 

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Decision & Reasons Issued:

 

On 27 ^th of February 2025

 

Before

 

DEPUTY UPPER UTRIBUNAL JUDGE ALIS

 

Between

 

RZ

(ANONYMITY ORDER MADE)

Appellant

and

 

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT

Respondent

Representation :

 

For the Appellant: Mr Forrest, Counsel

For the Respondent: Miss Cunha, Senior Home Office Presenting Officer

 

Heard at Field House on 25 February 2025

 

Order Regarding Anonymity

 

Pursuant to rule 14 of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008, [the appellant] ( and/or any member of his family, expert, witness or other person the Tribunal considers should not be identified) 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 ( and/or other person). Failure to comply with this order could amount to a contempt of court .

DECISION AND REASONS

 

1.             The Appellant, a Chinese national aged 34 years of age, left China on 20 December 2018 accompanied by a snakehead and she went to Dublin where she stayed before travelling to the United Kingdon by boat where she reunited with her husband who came to this country in November 2017 and claimed asylum. His claim had been refused by the Respondent on 29 September 2023 and no appeal had been lodged.

2.             The Appellant claimed asylum on 28 April 2020 which the Respondent refused on 29 September 2023. The Appellant appealed this decision and her appeal came before Judge Cox (hereinafter referred to as the FTTJ) in a decision promulgated on 18 July 2024. Permission to appeal was initially refused in 3 September 2024 but Upper Tribunal Judge Blundell granted permission to appeal on 25 September 2024 finding it arguable there had been a material error because:

"In circumstances in which the majority of the judge's findings are based on his view of the plausibility of various aspects of the Appellant's case, it is appropriate to give permission to appeal.

 

It was arguably wrong in law for a Scottish judge to reject a Chinese protection claim partly because he thought it unlikely that paper documents would be used in the accounting department of the Water Bureau in Fuqing City. There was seemingly no evidential basis for that finding, and it arguably does not accord with the approach required by cases such as MAH (Egypt) v SSHD [2023] EWCA Civ 216; [2023] Imm AR 713.

 

The other grounds are less persuasive but may be argued."

3.             Both representatives appeared remotely at the hearing via CVP.

SUBMISSIONS

 

4.             Mr Forrest submitted there was an error for the reasons set out in the grounds of appeal. The main ground was ground (i) albeit reliance was still placed on the other grounds.

 

5.             Mr Forrest referred to paragraph 4.23 of the decision and submitted the FTTJ made an assumption that was not open to him namely that communication would not have been done by hand but would have been done electronically. This finding was made without any evidence as to the system for communication in the Appellant's parents' office. This finding underpinned the decision to reject the Appellant's claim.

 

6.             At paragraph 4.22 of the decision the FTTJ said the Appellant feared HGC and said "at its highest, her evidence is that her parents suspected HGC was behind the campaign of intimidation in late 2018". Mr Forrest submitted this finding failed to have regard to paragraph [14] of her statement in which she said HGC threatened her parents and he knew about the Appellant and told her parents he could do something to her and her life would be in danger.

 

7.             Contrary to what the FTTJ wrote it was unclear where her parents actually worked albeit it was assumed they worked at the Water Conservance Bureau and made findings her parents were civil servants without any evidence of the same. Mr Forrest submitted the FTTJ materially erred on this issue.

 

8.             With regard to the remainder of the grounds, Mr Forrest referred to paragraph 4.27, where the FTTJ found it incredible the Appellant played no part in the discussions for her to leave the country but this failed to have regard to what the Appellant stated at paragraph [20] of her statement in which she made it clear her parents did not speak to her "a lot about this" which is different from saying she played no part.

 

9.             With regard to paragraph 4.31 Mr Forrest submitted the FTTJ failed to consider what the expert said about the matter in part 2.7 of the report. The expert concluded corruption was common in China and she would not be able to rely on protection from the State. Mr Forrest also relied on ground (iii) of the grounds as pleaded and argued the FTTJ failed to provide reasoning for concluding the Appellant had not lost touch with her family.

 

10.         Miss Cunha opposed the application. Whilst noting the permission stated there was seemingly being no evidential basis for finding it was unlikely that paper documents would be used in the accounting department of the Water Bureau Miss Cunha argued that the finding itself was not speculative and should be read alongside the decision as a whole. The finding in paragraph 4.27 of the decision about her knowledge of how she would leave China was made in response to the Respondent's submissions and after the FTTJ had made numerous adverse findings about her claim.

 

11.         Miss Cunha argued it was apparent from the FTTJ's decision that her case was considered at its highest but the FTTJ having considered the evidence found it lacked credibility her mother would have been able to calculate there was a discrepancy after only seeing the piece of paper for such a short period of time. The FTTJ gave detailed reasons in the decision for rejecting the claim. If HGC was concerned his dishonesty had been discovered and he was as influential as claimed then the FTTJ made the point that HGC would have made it known to the Appellant's parents he was aware and he was the person behind the threats and intimidation. The fact her parents continued to work in the bureau was a further reason the FTTJ gave for rejecting the account. The fact no one did anything about his corruption would support the FTTJ's finding they would not be interested in the Appellant.

 

12.         Miss Cunha submitted the FTTJ was entitled to find her claim to not be in contact with her parents to lack credibility and gave reasons for this finding. In particular, the FTTJ noted the Appellant claimed she intended to bring her daughter to the UK who stayed with her parents which suggested she could contact her parents. The fact she had not contacted her parents was something the FTTJ could take into account.

 

13.         The FTTJ also gave reasons why it lacked credibility the Appellant did not know she was leaving. There was also no explanation why there was such a delay after husband left (paragraph 4.29) and it was her case she managed to escape from police custody and leave the country without any issues which supported the FTTJ's finding they would not be interested in her if she was returned.

 

DISCUSSION AND FINDINGS

 

14.         Having heard submissions I reserved my decision. For the reasons hereinafter set out I find there is no material error in law.

 

15.         Mr Forrest agreed the strongest ground in this appeal centred around the FTTJ's finding in paragraph 4.23 of the decision that "it seemed more likely than not that a government department in China, just as in the UK, would use email for such correspondence rather than use an antiquated system of hand delivering paper documents". Upper Tribunal Judge Blundell's permission centred around this finding.

 

16.         It is important not to consider a finding in isolation but to look at how the FTTJ reached that decision. It also is a matter of law that even if there is an erroneous finding it is necessary to look at the remainder of the decision and consider how that finding affected the outcome. So for example if the above finding was the sole reason for rejecting a claim and it was found to be erroneous then that is more likely than not to influence the decision on whether there is an error in law as against where the FTTJ made multiple adverse findings.

 

17.         The FTTJ set out the written and oral evidence between paragraphs 4.2 and 4.21 of the decision and then between paragraphs 4.22 and 4.32 of the decision the FTTJ set out a detailed analysis of the evidence. The grounds of appeal did not challenge the recording of the evidence but simply took issue with the FTTJ's conclusions.

 

18.         The FTTJ noted that the Appellant's parents worked in the same department as HGC. There was inconsistent evidence about whether the parents were ever directly threatened by HGC himself despite the Appellant's claim that it was her mother who had seen the offending document which purportedly showed HGC was corrupt. Whilst the Appellant described what had happened in China (see paragraphs 4.5, 4.11-3.13) the FTTJ made an unchallenged finding that it was only a suspicion " HGC was behind the campaign of intimidation in late 2018."

 

19.         The FTTJ had to assess the claim that the Appellant's mother saw the offending document and he concluded in paragraph 4.23 that it lacked credibility that this document would have been shared in paper form rather than by email. It is this finding that formed the backbone of the first ground of appeal. Miss Cunha accepted it could have been speculation but a closer examination of the decision meant that it was not a finding that materially affected the final decision.

 

20.         The FTTJ placed weight on this issue as the FTTJ wrote "t his has the appearance of manufactured detail intended to explain how RRZ's mother came to see the false accounts produced by a more senior civil servant" and "RRZ relied on this single instance, of reading a document, which caused RRZ's parents to form the opinion that HGC was corrupt.".

 

21.         The FTTJ went on to consider the consequences of such a document and questioned how the mother would be able to reach a conclusion the document showed evidence of dishonesty when she only had access to this document for brief period.

 

22.         The FTTJ then went on to find that even if what was said was credible (paragraph 4.25) they did not report him to the police or senior management and the Appellant never claimed HGC approached either her mother or father to gauge what they would do. The FTTJ used these findings to undermine the Appellant's claim there was such a document in the first place and so even if the FTTJ's finding in paragraph 4.23 was speculative ultimately it did not materially affect the outcome as the FTTJ considered the case on the basis the mother had seen this document and rejected it for the reasons given in the decision.

 

23.         The FTTJ noted the Appellant's claim that men came to her family home but pointed out that her parents did not know whether the men who came had any connection to HGC especially as their purpose in attending at the home was not made known to the parents. If HGC was a powerful and corrupt as alleged then the FTTJ concluded with reasons why this aspect of the claim was rejected. None of the findings in paragraphs 4.24, 4.25 and 4.26 were challenged either in the grounds of appeal or in oral submissions. Those findings formed the basis for the FTTJ's ultimate rejection of the claim.

 

24.         Accordingly, whilst I accept Mr Forrest's argument the finding in paragraph 4.23 was speculative the reality was the FTTJ did consider the document at its highest and went on to explain why the evidence was rejected. The Appellant's claim was not refused because the FTTJ found it lacked credibility such a document would only be sent by electronic means.

 

25.         Turing to the remaining grounds of appeal I am satisfied paragraph 4.27 reflected what the Appellant said in her witness statement. The FTTJ did not make a finding she did not discuss matters with her parents but instead found she did not "really" discuss the plans for her to leave with them to lack credibility. Paragraph [20] of her statement records " my parents decided that I should leave China. They did not speak to me a lot about this" which is no different to what the FTTJ said in his decision.

 

26.         The FTTJ gave detailed reasoning why the Appellant's claim to have lost contact with her parents lacked credibility. The FTTJ explained his reasons for this conclusion in paragraph 4.28 and that reasoning was open to the FTTJ.

 

27.         The final challenge centred around the expert report. However, at paragraph 4.31 the FTTJ referred to the report and acknowledged there was corruption but for the reasons given the FTTJ had found her claim lacked credibility and it therefore followed although there is corruption in China the FTTJ concluded corruption, for the reasons given, was not relevant in the appeal. It was a finding open to the FTTJ.

 

Notice of Decision

 

There was no material error in law. The original decision of Judge Cox shall stand and this appeal is dismissed.

 

 

SP ALIS

 

Judge of the Upper Tribunal

Immigration and Asylum Chamber

 

26 February 2025