BAILII [Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]

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


You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Immigration and Asylum (AIT/IAC) Unreported Judgments >> PA085592017 [2018] UKAITUR PA085592017 (17 October 2018)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKAITUR/2018/PA085592017.html
Cite as: [2018] UKAITUR PA085592017, [2018] UKAITUR PA85592017

[New search] [Context] [View without highlighting] [Printable PDF version] [Help]


 

Upper Tribunal

(Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: PA/08559/2017

 

 

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

 

 

Heard at Bradford

Decision and Reasons promulgated

on 4 September 2018

On 17 October 2018

 

 

Before

 

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE HANSON

 

 

Between

 

RK

( Anonymity direction made)

Appellant

and

 

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT

Respondent

 

 

Representation :

For the Appellant: Mr Dingley of the Manuel Bravo Project

For the Respondent: Mrs Petersen Senior Home Office Presenting Officer

 

 

ERROR OF LAW FINDING AND REASONS

 

1.                   The appellant appeals with permission a decision of First-tier Tribunal Judge Moxon promulgated on 22 March 2018 in which the Judge dismissed the appellant's appeal on protection and human rights grounds.

 

 
Background

 

2.                   The appellant is a citizen of Iran born on 3 June 1985 who is the subject of an order for his deportation from the United Kingdom issued on 23 January 2012. The appellant asserted that his deportation contravenes the United Kingdom's obligations under the Refugee Convention and/or the European Convention of Human Rights.

3.                   It was not in dispute that the appellant has a genuine and subsisting relationship with his British wife and their daughter or that it would be unduly harsh for them to relocate to Iran. The respondent's case is that it will be proportionate for the appellant to be removed.

4.                   The appellant entered the United Kingdom on 8 August 2003 and claimed asylum the same day on the basis he was wanted by the Iranian authorities accused of illegal smuggling. The application was refused and although the appellant challenged that decision he became appeal rights exhausted on 19 March 2004. Further submissions made in April 2011 were rejected on 20 June 2011.

5.                   Following service of the deportation decision the appellant asserted a real risk on return on the basis of his conversion to Christianity.

6.                   The deportation order was issued as a result of the appellant being convicted on 28 occasions for 41 offences in the United Kingdom between 6 January 2005 and 24 February 2015, the final two convictions arising from two counts of shoplifting that occurred on 4 February 2015. The Judge notes the appellant was convicted of possessing heroin in July 2005 and possessing an imitation firearm in a public place in December 2007.

7.                   The Judge sets out the nature of the evidence provided including that from the appellant, his wife, and Pastor Dyson of the church the appellant attends who stated he believes the appellant has become a committed Christian who attends Bible studies and prayer meetings. Reference to letters and other documentary evidence provided is set out in the decision under challenge.

8.                   The Judge notes the appellant had given a broadly consistent account of his religious conversion which was prima facie plausible and that he also had the benefit of substantial supporting witness evidence, including from Pastor Dyson. The Judge found that those members of the church who attended were credible and not seeking to mislead, and accepted the appellant attended church, classes and activities and did so with 'vigour and enthusiasm'. The Judge accepts the appellant has been baptised and that he clearly dedicated a considerable amount of his available time to the church [40]. The Judge finds the witnesses believe the appellant to be sincere and have no reason to doubt him but finds they would not subject the appellant's motives to the anxious scrutiny required by the Tribunal in the circumstances. The Judge noted at [42] that Pastor Dyson did not assert he challenged the appellant's faith and stated that he only refused baptism after interview for people that he felt were rushing into it rather than people who he disbelieved.

9.                   The Judge noted the appellant's wife was baptised at the same time but found aspects of the evidence that undermined her credibility at [43]. The Judge also noted inconsistencies in the evidence of this witness.

10.               The Judge having noted positive elements found a number of features of the evidence that undermined the appellant's credibility, set out at [41 (i) - (viii)] of the decision under challenge. At [45] the Judge finds:

 

45. I have stood back and considered all of the evidence in the round and given as much weight as I feel able to the evidence that is supportive of the Appellant's claim. I have reminded myself of the lower standard of proof to be adopted. However, even upon that the low standard of proof I am not satisfied that the Appellant is a genuine Christian convert or that he would seek to proselytise in Iran. I find that he has fabricated an account to pursue an unmeritorious claim for asylum.

 

11.               Thereafter the Judge considered the appellant's position on return as no more than a failed asylum seeker but did not find that he will face a real risk when considering relevant country guidance evidence, sufficient to entitle him to a grant of international protection.

12.               In relation to the assessment of the appellant's character in general the Judge writes:

 

52. I do not accept that the appellant is a changed character. Whilst I note that there has been a gap of over three years since he last offended I note that he has nevertheless sought to pursue an unmeritorious claim for asylum which he has fabricated to members of the church, to the Home Office and to myself on account of conversion to Christianity. He also sought to mislead as to when he last offended. He remains a dishonest individual and I am satisfied that his restraint from criminal activity is motivated by him seeking to present as a changed character in order to bolster his appeal against deportation rather than being genuine.

 

13.               Thereafter the Judge considered the human rights aspects of the claim concluding that any interference with the appellant's family or private life in the United Kingdom as a result of his deportation was proportionate to the legitimate public end sought to be achieved.

14.               The appellant sought permission to appeal which was initially refused by another judge of the First-Tier Tribunal but granted on a renewed application on 2 July 2018 on the basis Grounds 1 and 4 are said to be arguable. Although the judge granting permission did not specifically refuse permission it was considered that the other grounds warranted less weight.

15.               Ground 1 asserted the Judge failed to accord due weight to the 3 rd party corroborative evidence placing little weight on the evidence of the Pastor and numerous members of the church who provided evidence in support of the appellant's conversion and changed lifestyle. Ground 4 asserts the Judge undertook an inadequate assessment of whether it will be unduly harsh to separate the appellant's daughter from the appellant.

 
Rule 15(2A) application
 

16.               A rule 15(2A) application was submitted by the appellant on 29 August 2018. It was directed that the application was to be dealt with at the oral hearing as it was out of time. The 'new' evidence included responses from witnesses to the Judge's determination with specific regard to matters it is claimed had not been put to those witnesses during the hearing and which was said to be directly relevant to the issues to be determined by the Upper Tribunal. Two letters from GP's, addressed to the appellant and his wife, regarding previous addictions and conversion to Christianity which was not available at the time of the First-tier hearing were also provided, which is said to be directly relevant to the assessment of the child's best interests, raised in Ground 4.

17.               Rule 15(2A) provides:

 

In an asylum case or an immigration case -”

(a)    if a party wishes the Upper Tribunal to consider evidence that was not before the First-tier Tribunal, that party must send or deliver a notice to the Upper Tribunal and any other party-”

(i)      indicating the nature of the evidence; and

(b)    (ii) explaining why it was not submitted to the First-tier Tribunal; and

(c)     when considering whether to admit evidence that was not before the First-tier Tribunal, the Upper Tribunal must have regard to whether there has been unreasonable delay in producing that evidence.

 

18.               The appellant is seeking to rely, in part, upon fresh evidence . In general terms reliance on fresh evidence to establish the existence of a mistake of fact is covered by the principles in Ladd v Marshall [1954] 3 A ll ER 745 although these principles might be departed from in exceptional cases where the interests of justice require - see R v SSHD [2005] EWCA Civ 982.

19.               The principles in Ladd v Marshall are (i) the new evidence could not with reasonable diligence have been obtained for use at the trial; (ii) the new evidence must be such that, if given, it would probably have had an important influence on the result of the case (though it need not be decisive) and (iii) the new evidence was apparently credible although it need not be incontrovertible.

20.               In JF (Republic of Congo) [2005] UKIAT 00053 the Adjudicator had dismissed the appellant ' s claimed membership of the UPADS and post his decision the appellant produced a copy of his membership card. The Tribunal noted that this was not " uncontentious and objectively verifiable " evidence as required by the E and R principles ( E and R [2004] EWCA Civ 49 ) since the issue of the claimant ' s membership remained contentious as the Secretary of State did not accept it. While the absence of the card was material to the Adjudicator ' s decision she had made no mistake in law on its availability at the date of decision. The late production did not establish any point of law as to the decision ' s correctness.

21.               In R and Others v SSHD [2005] EWCA Civ 982 Lord Justice Brooke said that the idea that a first instance judge had erred by failing to take into account matters which, by definition, he could not possibly have known about unless he was a soothsayer was one worthy of Lewis Carroll. The Court of Appeal took the view that the Adjudicators in R and Others who had refused two Afghani appeals from members of Hezbi Islami in ignorance of the evidence put forward subsequently in RS (Afghanistan) [2004] UKIAT 00278 - evidence which was not uncontentious and objective verifiable - did not commit errors of law.

22.               In contrast, in Shabana Shaheen [2005] EWCA Civ 1294 the Court of Appeal re- affirmed that the identification of an uncontentious and objectively verifiable fact, such as the prior existence of crucial and reliable documentary evidence which could have made a material difference to the decision under appeal, may show that a decision was erroneous in law, although the courts should be very wary of allowing appeals on fact to re-enter through the back door and appeals should not be reopened merely because a witness had been found who could have given evidence challenging the conclusions reached by the original decision maker in ignorance of the evidence.

23.               Following discussion it was accepted that the letters from the witnesses commenting upon the weight given by the Judge to their evidence was no more than disagreements with such weight rather than amounting to fresh evidence. The only new material is the letters from the GP's which, on the appellant's own admission, was not evidence before the Judge.

24.               In support of the argument such should be admitted Mr Dingley referred to the fact that the letters concerned points raised in the refusal letter although were also raised in specific terms in cross examination of both the appellant and his wife. The appellant was aware the best interests of the child was an important issue and that the appellant dealt with the same his witness statement. I find this was clearly an issue of which all parties were aware before the hearing.

25.               In response to a specific question Mr Dingley accepted that the new evidence was evidence that could have been obtained before the hearing before the First-Tier Tribunal but submitted the medical evidence could have an important influence on the results of the case so far as it related to the human rights aspects. The letter refers to the basic level of care but not what the effect would be upon the appellant's wife, the child's mother, or the care that she could give if the appellant was removed. It was submitted on the appellant's behalf that the contents of the GP letter are not a contentious issue on the basis of what the GP had been told.

26.               On behalf the Secretary of State, Mrs Peterson did not object to the GP evidence being admitted by the Upper Tribunal in relation to the human rights aspects of the claim only; although submitted submissions would be made in relation to the materiality of the same.

27.               I allow the rule 15(2A) application to the limited extent of allowing the appellant to rely upon the letters from the GP's in relation to the article 8 aspects of the claim only.

 

Error of law

 

Ground 1 - Christian conversion.

 

28.               It is asserted the Judge failed to consider the evidence that had been provided in both oral and written form. It was argued the Judge has missed out material aspects of the evidence that should have been included in the decision. The Pastor gave oral evidence of what was needed for a person to be baptised including that relating to the circumstances in which he refused to consent to baptism. It was submitted the Judge did not take into account other answers given and did not take evidence into account as the findings are contrary to the evidence given, and that if taken at its face value the evidence of the Pastor should have led to the appeal being allowed.

29.               The appellant placed reliance upon a decision of the High Court in SA (Iran) v Secretary of State the Home Department [2012] EWHC 2575 asserting the same was binding but this is factually incorrect. Decisions of the High Court are persuasive but do not amount to a binding precedent in the same way a decision of the Court of Appeal or above is.

30.               A further case dealing with Christian converts, not referred to the Upper Tribunal as it was decided only recently, is that of TF (Iran) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2018] CSIH 58, in which the Inner House of the Court of Sessions found that church witnesses who were in positions of responsibility within the church who had observed an appellant's activities at church and expressed their views on the genuine nature of the appellant's conversion based on their experience were giving expert evidence. The decision contains an extensive discussion of how to approach the fact-finding exercise in cases where the appellant claims to have converted to Christianity. So far as Dorodian was concerned, it was said that while it would no doubt be desirable that the individual concerned be vouched for by someone in a position of leadership within the relevant church, it is more important that the evidence be given by someone who has knowledge of the individual whose commitment is in question. What mattered was that they have sufficient knowledge of the practices of the church of which they are a member; sufficient experience of observing and interacting with those seeking to become members of the church; sufficient knowledge and experience of others who have gone through similar processes of engagement in church activities with a view to becoming members of the church; and, in cases such as these, sufficient knowledge of the individuals concerned and of the manner in which they have thrown themselves into church activities.

31.               Even if this is so, it does not mean that such evidence is necessarily determinative. The obligation upon the Judge was to properly consider such evidence together with all other material relied upon by the parties to the appeal as the Judge did in this case. The appellant fails to establish any artificial separation amounting to a procedural irregularity sufficient to amount to an arguable error of law in a manner in which such evidence was considered.

32.               The Judge found the evidence of the church members not to be determinative for the reasons set out at [44] of the decision under challenge which included the appellant previously seeking asylum on a basis which was found not to be credible, the fact the appellant started to regularly attend church upon receiving the deportation order whereas whilst he had attended a number of years previously such was infrequent and appears to have been incentivised by the provision of meals, that the appellant starting to regularly attend church and be baptised after the deportation notice indicating that his purported conversion was a further effort to seek to circumvent the immigration rules to secure his presence in the United Kingdom, that the appellant had sought to mislead the Judge in these proceedings in claiming his last conviction arose from an incident in 2012-13 whereas the last offence was 4 February 2015, the appellant's attempts to minimise the offence of possession of an imitation firearm claiming that it was a video game gun he had in a plastic bag rather than its box which is contrary to the fact the appellant was convicted pursuant to section 19 of the Firearms Act 1968 for which the appellant pleaded guilty and received a 12 month community order for that offence, that the appellant's claim to have become disillusioned with Islam was not raised in his initial asylum claim and was not accepted as being credible, and that whilst a detailed knowledge of Christianity is not determinative of the lack of faith it was found there are basic areas of knowledge lacking such is the identity of Judas Iscariot and the denomination of the church within which the appellant was baptised. The Judge notes that whilst Pastor Dyson stated that it is not unusual for someone not to know the denomination of the church the Judge noted the appellant claimed to have been come disillusioned with Islam in Iran and have made enquiries about faith since his arrival in the United Kingdom making it implausible he would not have learnt of the denominations, the Judge rejected the appellant's attempt to explain his lack of knowledge as problems with interpretation in his asylum interview as the appellant was interviewed in English and did not raise any difficulties at the time, speaks fluent English, and also interprets for Farsi speakers at the church. The Judge noted when asked about the denomination of the church during his asylum interview he was recorded as responding "I forgot". The Judge found the appellant's assertion of posting Christian messages on Facebook did not establish any real risk in light of there being insufficient evidence that any Facebook entries posted were available to the public to see or that the appellant could not delete any account prior to returning to Iran.

33.               This is not an appeal in which the Judge has held adverse credibility findings against the appellant that arose in earlier proceedings and effectively use those to reduce the weight given to evidence made available in these proceedings including from members of the church. The Judge does not in any way criticise the evidence from churchgoers, including Pastor Dyson, who gave evidence in relation to what they saw and what they believe. The Judge undertook the assessment exercise based upon the evidence made available to the First-Tier Tribunal and, attributing the weight to that evidence the Judge thought was appropriate, did not find the appellant had established that his claim to be a Christian is genuine.

34.               As the Judge undertook the examination of the evidence with the required degree of anxious scrutiny and has given adequate reasons in support of the findings made, the weight to be given to the evidence was a matter for the Judge. It is not legal error for the Judge not to set out all the evidence provided or to make specific findings in relation to every aspect of the evidence provided a reader of the determination properly understands how the Judge arrived at the conclusions he or she did. That is the situation in this appeal.

35.               The appellant challenges the conclusion that he is not a genuine convert to Christianity although it is noted that in the recent case of A v Switzerland (Application no 60342/16) before the ECHR the Swiss government accepted that the appellant had converted to Christianity although expressed doubts whether his conversion was genuine and lasting. The government however considered that Christian converts would only face a real risk of ill-treatment if they expressed their faith in a manner which would lead to them being perceived as a threat to the authorities which required a certain level of public exposure which was not the case for the applicant. They considered that the Iranian authorities would be aware that Iranian citizens at times attempted to rely on conversion to Christianity to secure refugee status abroad and would take such circumstances into account such that the person would not be at real risk of ill-treatment on return. There was no evidence before the ECHR to contradict the government's findings on the public practice of the appellant's faith. The ECHR considered that bearing in mind the reasoning of the Swiss government and the reports on the situations of Christian converts, in the absence of fresh evidence there were no grounds to consider the government's assessment inadequate. The Home Office place great reliance on this case in their March 2018 CPIN.

36.               The finding by the Judge that there was insufficient evidence to establish a real risk on return, on any basis, has therefore not been shown to be a decision infected by arguable legal error.

 

Ground 2 -

 

37.               In this ground the appellant claims the Judge has made findings without taking into account the appellant's explanation and that even if it was accepted the appellant had lied on a particular point in relation to when he last committed his offences it is argued this was not sufficient to find him wholly incredible.

38.               Mrs Peterson submits the appellant is attempting to mislead the Upper Tribunal in relation to this pleading, referring specifically to [43] in which the Judge finds:

 

43. I take into account as supportive of the Appellant's account that his wife was baptised at the same time. However, this is not determinative. There are aspects of the evidence that do undermine her credibility. She has asserted significant anxiety as an explanation of why she could not care for her daughter without the Appellant yet she has failed to adduce any corroborative evidence, as outlined in paragraph 55, below. Also, in her statement to paragraph 4 she stated that she was previously was not religious, had no interest in religion and had not thought about religion much, which is inconsistent with the oral evidence of her mother who stated that she had "religious leanings" before the Appellant introduced her to the church. This reduces the weight that I can give her evidence and I note in any event that she and her family members are not independent which also reduces the weight that I give their evidence.

 

39.               It is also submitted on the respondent's behalf that the appellant has a long history which was taken into account by the Judge.

40.               This ground has no arguable merit. It is not disputed the Judge correctly records the appellant claiming he thought his last conviction was in 2013 whereas it was in 2015. The Judge finds the appellant had attempted to mislead in this respect, a conclusion arrived at having considered the evidence as a whole. The Judge does not treat this is the determinative factor or a central issue but one of a number of factors of concern. No arguable error material to the decision arises on this point.

 

Ground 3

 

41.               The appellant asserts the Judge gives inadequate reasoning for the findings of no risk from screening on return, but such claim has no arguable merit. The Judge clearly considered the relevant country guidance case on this point but did not find there was anything specifically relevant to the appellant that would create a real risk. At [47] the Judge writes:

 

47. Given the adverse credibility findings, outlined above, I am not satisfied that he left Iran illegally. In any event, whilst I accept that the Appellant has been outside of Iran for a lengthy period and would return as a failed asylum seeker I do not accept that he will be subject to scrutiny given his lack of profile and in any event I do not accept that he would disclose church activity as he is not genuinely a Christian. I do not accept that the Appellant's marriage will itself result in persecution and no objective evidence has been highlighted to this effect. I do not accept that the Appellant would be asked about his marriage and given that I do not accept that the Appellant has renounced his Islamic faith I do not accept that it would result in negative attention.

 

42.               The Judge clearly gives adequate reasons in support of the finding that there is nothing that would give rise to a real risk on return during the processes the appellant is likely to have to undertake if returned to Iran.

43.               As submitted by Mrs Peterson, Mr Dingley was unable to point to case law or country information establishing a real risk at the point of return on these facts.

 

Ground 4

 

44.               The appellant asserts the Judge undertook an inadequate assessment of whether it would be unduly harsh to separate the appellant from his daughter; claiming the Judge did not assess the daughter's interests in her own right but assesses it alongside the appellant's spouse in the context of the availability of care. The appellant in his grounds refers to the decision in MAB (para 399, "unduly harsh") USA [2015] UKUT 435 (IAC) but this decision was found to have been wrongly decided by the Court of Appeal in MM (Uganda) [2016] EWCA Civ 450.

45.               Mr Dingley submitted that the issue in relation to this ground was in fact the availability of care if the appellant is removed from the United Kingdom, but at [68] the Judge found " I am satisfied that the appellant's child will be adequately cared for by her mother and her mother's family. I am told of a large support network from what is clearly a close family".

46.               It was submitted on the appellant's behalf that this case is unduly harsh on the facts and that although the GP evidence was not before the Judge the Judge commented upon lack of corroboration. It was argued there was no evidence the mother had abandoned the child or that her parents had abandoned her.

47.               It is not made out the Judge failed to consider the correct test in finding that whilst it would no doubt be distressing for the appellant's wife and child to be separated from the appellant it would not be unduly harsh.

48.               Evidence from the GP has now been made available as part of the Rule 15(2A) application. The evidence from the GP, for the appellant's wife, is in the following terms:

 

I write in support of [LR] (the appellant's wife) , a patient registered at Holycroft Surgery.

 

[LR] and her husband together have battled heroin addiction. Through the tremendous psychological support that he gives her, [LR] has been able to make progress with her profound anxiety, and started coming out of the house, socialising and so forth. Together they have engaged with the local recovery programme and are both on a stable dose of methadone, without any illicit drug use in addition. [LR] has experienced a marked reduction in her panic attacks. Unfortunately the current stressful situation with her husband has meant that both the anxiety levels and panic attacks have re-escalated to such a degree that I will be concerned about [LR's] ability to look after their daughter without her husband's support. She is experiencing nightmares and is on a constant state of heightened alert. [LR] is currently taking mirtazapine, an antidepressant; I have advised her not to further reduce the methadone at this stage as I am concerned about the deterioration in her mental health.

 

[LR] had made good progress in her recovery, which has only been possible for her due to the shared journey and support of her husband. Removing the stability will have a marked detrimental effect on her mental health as well is her ability to care for their child. I hope that you will consider both [LR's] mental well-being, but also that of their daughter, and allow her husband to remain and continue to provide them both with the unwavering support that they deserve. If there is any further information that you require please do not hesitate to contact me.

 

49.               In relation to the appellant, written by a different doctor:

 

I am writing this letter in relation to [RK's] application to remain in the UK. I have known him in my capacity as his family's General Protest practitioner for the past 2.5 years.

 

[RK] and his wife [L] are both former injecting drug users, however they have engaged well with local Substance Misuse Services and are now both off street drugs and no longer on an Opiate Substitution Program (e.g. methadone). [RK] and his wife attribute much of their success to their active Christian faith and the support of Sunbridge Road Mission Church, based in Bradford. I understand that [RK] brings a unique contribution to the church community by running Bible study groups for an Iranian group who are linked to the church. [RK] speaks excellent English, has high levels of UK cultural competency and expresses a commitment to continue to integrate and contribute to UK life.

 

I understand that there has been challenge regarding the authenticity of [RK's] Christian faith. In the time that I have known [RK], he has always been expressive about his active Christian faith, in an appropriate way, and described how his faith and involvement with his church community have greatly helped him and his family overcome drug addiction. In no way did this appear linked to any attempt to renew his Visa, as this was over 2 years ago that I first heard [RK] volunteer detail about his active Christian faith. To have overcome drug addiction is an obstacle many people with addiction do not achieve, and in my experience, the majority who manage this remain on Opiate Substitution Treatment for many years or even decades. The fact that [RK] and his wife have both overcome heroin addiction and through substantial motivation have finished their Opiate Substitution Treatment in an approximately 3 year period is unusual and impressive.

 

I think it is highly likely that their active Christian faith and genuine involvement and support of their local church over a number of years have been a major contributing factor. You will be aware there are many faith-based drug rehabilitation programs which assert a similar link.

 

In my judgement, [RK] has a genuine Christian faith and it is real danger of facing persecution, imprisonment and torture if he returns to Iran, and I wholly support his application to remain in the UK.

 

50.               The letter from the appellant's GP commenting upon the appellant's faith appears to be based solely upon what he has been told by the appellant which, arguably, does not add anything of substance to the evidence already considered by the Judge.

51.               It is noticeable that whilst the appellant's GP states that the appellant and his wife are no longer on an opiate substitution program e.g. methadone, the letter written by the appellant's wife's GP specifically states that both the appellant and his wife are on a stable dose of methadone without any illicit drug use in addition. There is clearly a contradiction in the letters written by two members of the same surgery treating these family members.

52.               The Judge took into account the evidence provided and there is nothing in the GP letter commenting upon the finding of the Judge that, whatever problems the family unit may have experienced, the appellant's wife will be able to care for their daughter if the appellant is removed either on her own or with the large support network available to her. There is no suggestion of local authority intervention in relation to the child in the evidence even when the child's parents must have been dependent upon heroin, or any indication that the best interests of the child are the determinative factor.

53.               It is not made out to the Judge has erred in law by applying an appropriate weight or in failing to consider the evidence appropriately. It is not made out the Judge has committed any procedural irregularity or made a decision that is irrational, perverse, and/or not within the range of decisions reasonably open to the Judge on the evidence. Whilst the appellant may disagree with the conclusions reached it has not been made out it is appropriate for the Upper Tribunal to interfere in this judgement.

 

Decision

 

54.               There is no material error of law in the Immigration Judge's decision. The determination shall stand.

 

Anonymity.

 

55.               The First-tier Tribunal made an order pursuant to rule 45(4)(i) of the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal (Procedure) Rules 2005.

 

I make such order pursuant to rule 14 of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008.

 

 

Signed.......................................................

Upper Tribunal Judge Hanson

Dated the 11 October 2018

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKAITUR/2018/PA085592017.html