“31. Taking into account all the evidence before me and applying the lower standard of proof to it, I am satisfied that the appellant has lied as to the reason why she left Angola and what she fears if she is returned there. 32. The Appellant has not been able to credibly explain why if she was a member of the Malimbo tribe from Kabinda that she was not able to speak the language that that tribe uses, namely Fiote. Her explanation that she spoke Portuguese because she was educated in this language is not credible bearing in mind her claim to have been from Kabinda. The fact that she does not speak the native languages of Kabinda is a clear indication that she has fabricated her evidence as to coming from that area. 33. The evidence before me clearly indicates that she was born and raised in Luanda. Her explanation as to why she had indicated this when she applied for a visa and on her passport is simply not credible. 34. The Appellant has accepted that she lied in relation to the date when she entered the United Kingdom. She has given no rational explanation for why she lied and her credibility is damaged by the admission she has made. 35. The Appellant claims to have been an active member of FLEC and had distributed political propaganda and had been expecting promotion to a more senior position within the party. That claim is incredible taking into account that she lacked fundamental knowledge regarding Kabinda and the position of FLEC. She was not able to name the governor of Kabiinda. That is a clear indication that she has fabricated her evidence to have been a member of FLEC. She was not able to give any information about the peace agreement which FLEC had entered into which is yet another clear indication that she has fabricated her evidence as to being a member of FLEC. 36. The Appellant accepts that in relation to both the visit visa application she made in South Africa and Angola that she lied on the application. She lied as to where her permanent residence was and she lied as to her reasons for wishing to go to the United Kingdom. She claims that she did so at the instigation of two separate agents who were advising her in relation to these separate applications. That claim is incredible taking into account she gave the same reason in relation to both applications for coming to the United Kingdom. 37. I believe none of the Appellant’s evidence; I find that she is an Angolan national who can be returned to Angola where nobody would have any adverse interest in her. She has no credibility whatsoever. I have taken into accountsection 8 of the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc.) Act 2004 . She has given evidence to both the Home Office and to myself which was designed or likely to conceal information or mislead. She has not answered questions honestly that had been put to her both in relation to her interview with the Home Office and when giving her testimony before me.”
“The applicant has failed to report as required on numerous dates between November 2007 and May 2008 without a satisfactory reason other than claiming she had no transport and was unwell. Although she has made an application for judicial review, I am satisfied that there is a materially greater risk than normal risk of her absconding because of her previous failure to report. Furthermore, no sureties have been offered and despite the applicant having NASS accommodation, there would appear to be little incentive for her to comply with bail conditions. The risk of absconding is too high for bail to be granted.”
“REASONS FOR OPPOSING BAIL • Removal action will be immediately initiated should the applicant’s Judicial Review application and further representations dated 07/11/08 be refused. • The applicant has demonstrated scant regard for Immigration Laws in the past, having presented a false passport on arrival to secure entry to the United Kingdom. The fact that the applicant failed to disclose these facts at the time of entry would suggest that little reliance might be placed on the applicant complying with Immigration control in the future. • The applicant has breached the conditions of his (sic) Temporary Admission in the past, having failed to report to the Immigration Service on various occasions as required. This would suggest that little reliance might be placed on the applicant complying with any conditions of release now. • Only£500 of recognizance per surety has been offered. It is considered that this is disproportionate to the risk of absconding in this case, particularly given the late stage of his (sic) case and his (sic) previous Immigration history. • On 26/08/08 the subject made a bail application to the High Court. This was subsequently refused on 01/09/08. The grounds for the bail application remain the same grounds that have been presented for the adjudicator’s bail hearing. • In light of the above it is considered that there are substantial grounds for believing that the applicant, if released on bail (whether subject to conditions or not) would fail to surrender to custody.” • Removal action will be immediately initiated should the applicant’s Judicial Review application and further representations dated 07/11/08 be refused. • The applicant has demonstrated scant regard for Immigration Laws in the past, having presented a false passport on arrival to secure entry to the United Kingdom. The fact that the applicant failed to disclose these facts at the time of entry would suggest that little reliance might be placed on the applicant complying with Immigration control in the future. • The applicant has breached the conditions of his (sic) Temporary Admission in the past, having failed to report to the Immigration Service on various occasions as required. This would suggest that little reliance might be placed on the applicant complying with any conditions of release now. • Only£500 of recognizance per surety has been offered. It is considered that this is disproportionate to the risk of absconding in this case, particularly given the late stage of his (sic) case and his (sic) previous Immigration history. • On 26/08/08 the subject made a bail application to the High Court. This was subsequently refused on 01/09/08. The grounds for the bail application remain the same grounds that have been presented for the adjudicator’s bail hearing. • In light of the above it is considered that there are substantial grounds for believing that the applicant, if released on bail (whether subject to conditions or not) would fail to surrender to custody.”
“Your case has been reviewed. It has been decided that you will remain in detention because: • There is reason to believe that you will fail to comply with any conditions attached to the grant of temporary admission or release. • To effect your removal from the United Kingdom. This decision has been reached on the basis of the following factors: • You have exhausted all of your rights of appeal and your removal from the United Kingdom is pending. • You have previously failed or refused to leave the United Kingdom when required to do so. • You have used documentary deception to gain leave to enter/remain or evade removal and it is considered likely that you will do so again. • You do not have enough close ties to make it likely that you will stay in one place. Your case will continue to be review on a regular basis. A further letter will be sent to you in one month if your case has not been resolved by then.”
“55.5 Factors influencing a decision to detain (excluding pre-decision fast track cases) 1. There is a presumption in favour of temporary admission or temporary release. 2. There must be strong grounds for believing that a person will not comply with conditions of temporary admission or temporary release for detention to be justified. 3. All reasonable alternatives to detention must be considered before detention is authorised 4. Once detention has been authorised, it must be kept under close review to ensure that it continues to be justified. 5. Each case must be considered on its individual merits. The following factors must be taken into account when considering the need for initial or continued detention: For detention: • What is the likelihood of the person being removed and, if so, after what timescale? • Is there any evidence of previous absconding? • Is there any evidence of a previous failure to comply with conditions of temporary release or bail? • Has the subject taken part in a determined attempt to breach the immigration law? (e.g. entry in breach of a deportation order, attempted or actual clandestine entry) • Is there a previous history of complying with the requirements of immigration control? (e.g. by applying for a visa, further leave, etc) • What are the person’s ties with the United Kingdom? Are there close relatives (including dependants) here? Does anyone rely on the person for support? Does the person have a settled address/employment? • What are the individual’s expectations about the outcome of the case? Are there factors such as an outstanding appeal, an application of Judicial Review or representations which afford incentive to keep in touch? Against detention: • Is the subject under 18? • Has the subject a history of torture? • Has the subject a history of physical or mental ill health? 55.16 Persons considered unsuitable for detention Certain persons are normally considered suitable for detention in only very exceptional circumstances, whether in dedicated IS accommodation or elsewhere. Others are unsuitable for IS detention accommodation because their detention requires particular security, care and control. The following are normally considered suitable for detention in only very exceptional circumstances whether in dedicated IS detention accommodation or elsewhere: • unaccompanied children and persons under the age of 18 (but see 55.15.3); • the elderly, especially where supervision is required; • pregnant women, unless there is the clear prospect of early removal and medical advice suggests no question of confinement prior to this (but see 55.6 for the detention of women in the early stages of pregnancy at Oakham or Yarl’s Wood); • those suffering from serious medical conditions or the mentally ill; • those where there is independent evidence that they have been tortured; • people with serious disabilities; Paragraph 60.8 deals with procedures that should be followed when judicial review claims were threatened or issued. The text extant in 2008 included this: “Where detailed grounds have been lodged but Border and Immigration Agency considers that the claim has no merit TSols should be instructed by the Border and Immigration Agency to notify the Court of this, with a request that the application is expedited. Where possible, detention should be maintained pending the outcome of the judicial review.”
“She did not register officially with the Organisation as per our requirement, but she has been assessed by me by responding to questions regarding the general knowledge of Cabinda … Moreover we are hereby confirming that Albertina Malungu is from Cabinda as one of the proof she has taken part in our demonstration in Manchester…Thus, we believe that Albertina Malungu would obviously be in danger if she returns to Angola.”
“In the circumstances the Secretary of State chooses to depart from her usual policy of deferring removal directions when a judicial review application has been lodged with the Courts. In the absence of an injunction Mr Malungu’s removal to Angola will go ahead as scheduled.”
“You further add that the new medical evidence will go to the core of the credibility of Ms. Malungu’s case and assert that in providing objective evidence which supports her account, the findings must be challenged and the determination must be considered unsafe and the likelihood of risk on return reconsidered. However despite your assertion and in spite of the medical examiner’s attempt to provide an explanation why Ms. Malungu may have found it difficult to raise these issues earlier – such as the difficulty disclosing personal details (particularly of a sexual nature) in the Home Office interview, it is noted that the Immigration Judge who after having the benefit of seeing and hearing your client give evidence did not consider her to be credible witness and dismissed her appeal. Furthermore it is noted that not only did he doubt the credibility of your client’s account, on account of her lack of fundamental knowledge regarding Cabinda and the position of the FLEC when taken together with the fact that she did not speak the native language of Cabinda, but he also considered her behaviour had profoundly damaged her credibility following her admission to have deliberately provided false information to the Embassy in Luanda in order to obtain a visitor’s visa. Nevertheless despite those adverse findings of credibility your client’s case has again been reviewed in light of the medical assessment and scar report. However, it is noted that contrary to your assertion that the new objective evidence supports your client’s account, it is noted that the scars referred to in the report are slight and mainly restricted to the legs and there is no clear evidence that the scarring was obviously the result of torture or detention. Moreover it is noted that the medical examiner has attributed some of the scars to other causes such as childhood injuries and with regard to several of the other scars featured in the report it appears your client was unable to recall how these were caused apart from vaguely stating as a result of torture. It has further been noted that there is also a serious discrepancy between the medical examiners report and the comments in your letter in relation to the scar on the thigh. In this regard it noted that in your letter you state that Ms. Malunga confirms “that this injury was inflicted when a soldier sliced her inner leg with a razor blade”
“Moreover, it should be pointed out the Home Office Country Information Policy Unit has the benefit of a wide range of sources which includes information provide by the United States Department (sic), the UNHCR, Amnesty International, the Refugee Council and the Foreign Commonwealth Office. Therefore the situation in Angola is constantly monitored, and in view of the lack of independent corroborative evidence in your client’s case there is no reason to believe that your client would suffer persecution from the Angolan authorities. Therefore in the absence of any independent countervailing evidence from a reliable source it is not accepted that your client has experienced any difficulties in Angola on account of her ethnicity, political opinion or components in her lifestyle. Nor is it accepted that there is a serious possibility that she was, or will be the object of adverse attention on the part of any agent of persecution, so as to render her at risk within the terms of the 1951 UN or ECHR Conventions. Finally careful regard has been given to your assertion that your client has represented herself at the AIT hearing on27 September 2007 , however it is noted that your client was represented by the Immigration Advisory Service until3 September 2007 when they ceased to act for your client. Your client was, from17 April 2008 represented by Abiloye & Co throughout the judicial review process, up until her application for permission was refused on5 August 2008 . Furthermore whilst in detention your client has had access to a list of legal representatives which is posted in the library at Yarlswood as well as having access to the Legal Services Commission who attend Yarlswood on a weekly basis every Tuesday and Thursday. Therefore your client has had ample opportunity to discuss the merits of her case and obtain legal representation.”
“10. When the Claimant’s detention review was completed on11 November 2008 UKBA was aware of the new further submissions that formed the basis of the Claimant’s application for Judicial Review but decided to maintain detention, and in accordance with the Defendant’s Enforcement Instructions and Guidance (Paragraph 60.8.1) requested that the Judicial Review to be expedited (sic). The Defendant maintains that the Claimant’s removal was still imminent pending the outcome of the Judicial Review application and it was not necessary to defer removal in the circumstances. 16. It is not discernable from the Secretary of State’s records whether or not the reviewer of the claimant’s continued detention had taken into account the Claimant’s further submissions of October 2008, including the medical evidence of the Helen Bamber Foundation. However, on4 November 2008 the Defendant served the Claimant with a decision refusing to treat the Claimant’s further submissions of9 October 2008 as a fresh claim, and the Claimant’s detention was subsequently maintained. At pages 1 and 2 of the letter the Defendant also specifically considered and rejected the Claimant’s assertion that she had been the victim of torture and, for the reasons set out in the letter, I consider that the Claimant is not a person for whom detention is unsuitable under UKBA’s Enforcement Instructions and Guidance at paragraph 55.10. This view was maintained in the Secretary of State’s letter of13 February 2009 , including the previous findings on respect of the Claimant’s report purporting to show the Claimant is a victim of torture (paragraph 27)….”
“In cases where a person a being detained because their removal is imminent the lodging of a suspensive appeal or other legal proceedings that need to be resolved before removal can proceed will need to be taken into account in deciding whether continued detention is appropriate. Release from detention will not be automatic in such circumstances: there may be other grounds justifying a person’s continued detention, e.g. risk of absconding, or the person’s removal may still legitimately be considered imminent if the appeal or other proceedings are likely to be resolved reasonably quickly.”