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-2024-005002
	First-tier Tribunal No: PA/58755/2023

 

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Decision & Reasons Issued:

On the 17 February 2025

 

Before

 

DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE LEWIS

 

Between

 

IU

(ANONYMITY ORDER MADE)

Appellant

and

 

SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT

Respondent

Representation :

For the Appellant: Ms. Jegarath, Legal representative

For the Respondent: Ms. McKenzie (Senior Home Office Presenting Officer)

 

Heard at Field House on 5 February 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

Background

 

1.                    The appellant is a citizen of Iraq. He claimed asylum and humanitarian protection as the potential victim of an honour crime.

2.                    The appellant's claim was refused by the respondent. His appeal against that decision was dismissed by the decision of First-tier Tribunal Judge Webber ('the Judge') promulgated on 17 ^th July 2024.

 

3.                    Permission to appeal against the judge's was granted by Upper Tribunal Judge Neville on 10 ^th December 2024. Although the grounds on which permission to appeal were not limited, Ms. Jegarath perused the appeal on a single ground:

 

(1)           At [22] the Judge erred in his credibility findings that Judge Webber because he failed to take into account parts of the appellant's evidence on whether his aunt had shouted in his defence.

 

The appellant's case

 

4.                    The appellant's case is that following the death of his father he inherited over USD $100,000. The appellant says that he was living with his uncle. He woke one day to discover his aunt was lying next to him in his bed. The appellant's uncle was standing over them shouting. The incident was witnessed by the appellant's cousin.

 

5.                    The appellant claims that this situation was staged by both his uncle and aunt. They acted together to provide the appellant's uncle with a reason to accuse the appellant of an 'honour crime' and thereafter to ' take over his father's share of the family property'.

6.                    The appellant surmises that his uncle was shouting in order to attract the attention of neighbours who would witness the appellant 'in bed' with his aunt and corroborate that an 'honour crime' had taken place.

 

7.                    The appellant gave the oral evidence before the Judge. He provided an account of what he claims happened on three other occasions:

 

(1) In his witness statement dated 4 ^th July 2023, the appellant said [§8-9]:

 

His wife was also trying to speak but my uncle was not giving her a chance as well.

 

(2)           When interviewed by the respondent on 3 ^rd October 2023, the appellant said [§46]

 

His wife was yelling and he was yelling, and from their yelling I woke up and I was a well-known person in the neighbourhood I was living there around 4 to 5 years and all the neighbours knew who I am and maybe he arranged that plan to make the neighbours know about me because the neighbours came out because of the yelling they thought it was a fire or something and he wanted and excuse to kill me like that.

 

At [45-48] of that interview that appellant was asked why he had said that his aunt had tried to defend him. He replied:

 

'I never said his wife was trying to protect me but it might be a mistake the lawyer made during the documents. I was trying to say that his wife was trying to say something but her husband didn't allow her to say that.'

 

(3)           In his witness statement dated 21 ^st December 2023, the appellant says his aunt was shouting in order to attract the attention of neighbours.

 

The judge's findings

8.                    The relevant findings [22] are set out below:

 

'The appellant has given different accounts of whether his aunt 'went along' with what he claims was a set-up. In the statement he gave to the respondent at interview, he said that his aunt was trying to speak but his uncle did not give her a chance. In his asylum interview itself, he was asked If this was his plan and he instructed his wife to sleep next to you, then why was she trying to defend you when your uncle began shouting at you? He replied She didn't support me in any way during the yelling but as far as I know he, she tried to speak and explain something twice during the speech but he didn't allow her but I don't know what she was trying to say and she didn't support me. He was then asked further : In your evidence you said she was trying to defend you, so why have you changed that account now? and replied No I never said that his wife was trying to protect me but it might be a mistake the lawyer made during the documents and I was trying to say that his wife was trying to say something but her husband didn't allow her to say that(p.231 SB) Then, in his second witness statement submitted for the purpose of this appeal(p54 SB), the appellant said It is also true that my aunty was shouting and trying to explain herself to my uncle that nothing had happened. The appellant has therefore given an inconsistent account as to whether his aunt was trying to defend him. I place significant weight on this inconsistency as it goes to the core of the appellant's claim .'

 

Discussion

 

9.                    In her submissions, Ms. Jegarath says the appellant did not give differing accounts - to the contrary - he has been consistent throughout that his aunt a knowing participant in the plan compromise the appellant and that a proper reading of the appellant's accounts in his interview will demonstrate this.

 

10.                In her oral submissions, Ms. Jegarth placed significant emphasis of the judge's findings - at the penultimate sentence of [22] as to whether his aunt was trying to 'defend him'. It is submitted that the judge has taken the appellant's answers out of context. She submits that on this, narrow matter, the judge made an error of fact material to his decision because the appellant's accounts were consistent.

 

11.                The respondent's position is simply that the Judge made the correct decision on the evidence before him.

 

12.                In Volpi v Volpi [2022] EWCA Civ 464, at [2], the Court of Appeal reiterated the caution with which an appellate tribunal must approach findings of fact:

i) An appeal court should not interfere with the trial judge's conclusions on primary facts unless it is satisfied that he was plainly wrong.

ii) The adverb "plainly" does not refer to the degree of confidence felt by the appeal court that it would not have reached the same conclusion as the trial judge. It does not matter, with whatever degree of certainty, that the appeal court considers that it would have reached a different conclusion. What matters is whether the decision under appeal is one that no reasonable judge could have reached.

...

vi) Reasons for judgment will always be capable of having been better expressed. An appeal court should not subject a judgment to narrow textual analysis. Nor should it be picked over or construed as though it was a piece of legislation or a contract.

 

13.                I have considered the judge's findings with care against the accounts given by the appellant as set out at paragraph 7, above. It is tolerably clear that the judge's references to ' defend him' [22] relate to whether or not the appellant's aunt was trying to speak, but was unable to do as set out in the appellant's witness statement 4 ^th July 2023, or whether she was yelling or screaming to attract the attention of neighbours. It is this inconsistency to which the judge refers with reference to 'defend' him.

 

14.                Ms. Jegarth's criticism of the judge's findings are subjecting the judge's reasons to precisely the kind of 'narrow textual analysis' discussed in Vopli.

 

15.                I do not find there to have been a mistake as to fact. Judge Webber [22] summarised the appellant's accounts and gave appropriate weight to his findings. Even if such mistake was established on a narrow textual analysis, it is clear to me that this is not material to the outcome. The judge has given clear and reasoned findings for rejecting the account of the appellant.

 

16.                The decision of the First-tier Tribunal did not involved the making of an error on a point of law.

 

Notice of Decision

 

1. The decision of the First-tier Tribunal did not involve the making of an error on a point of law. The decision to dismiss the appeal stands.

 

 

Paul Lewis

 

Deputy Judge of the Upper Tribunal

Immigration and Asylum Chamber

 

 

10 ^th February 2025