VT v The Secretary of State for the Home Department [2017] UKUT 368 (IAC)

[2017] UKUT 00368 (IAC)
Upper Tribunal
(Immigration and Asylum Chamber)
THE IMMIGRATION ACTS
Venue Heard at Field House Decision Promulgated On 14 March 2017 &28 April 2017
Before
UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE O’CONNORUPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE CANAVAN
Between
V TAppellant(ANONYMITY DIRECTION MADE)AppellantTHE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENTRespondentMs S. Jegarajah, Counsel instructed by Duncan Lewis Solicitors for AppellantMr B. Rawat, instructed by the Government Legal Department for RespondentAnonymityRule 14: The Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008Anonymity was granted at an earlier stage of the proceedings because the case involves protection issues. We find that it is appropriate to continue the order. Unless and until a tribunal or court directs otherwise, the appellant is granted anonymity. No report of these proceedings shall directly or indirectly identify him or any member of his family. This direction applies both to the appellant and to the respondent.(i) There is no general duty of inquiry upon the examiner to authenticate documents produced in support of a protection claim. There may be exceptional situations when a document can be authenticated by a simple process of inquiry which will conclusively resolve the authenticity and reliability of a document.(ii) There is a general duty of confidentiality during the process of examining a protection claim, including appellate and judicial review proceedings. If it is considered necessary to make an inquiry in the country of origin the country of asylum must obtain the applicant’s written consent. Disclosure of confidential information without consent is only justified in limited and exceptional circumstances, such as combating terrorism.(iii) The humanitarian principles underpinning Article 22 of the Procedures Directive prohibit direct contact with the alleged actor of persecution in the country of origin in a manner that might alert them to the likelihood that a protection claim has been made or in a manner that might place applicants or their family members in the country of origin at risk.(iv) The humanitarian objective of the Refugee Convention requires anyone seeking to authenticate a document produced in support of a protection claim to follow a precautionary approach. Careful consideration should be given to the duty of confidentiality, to whether an inquiry is necessary, to whether there is a safer alternative and whether the inquiry is made in a way that does not give rise to additional protection issues for applicants or their family members. Disclosure of personal information should go no further than is strictly necessary. Whether an inquiry is necessary and is carried out in an appropriate way will depend on the facts of the case and the circumstances in the country of origin.(v) Failure to comply with the duty of confidentiality or a breach of the prohibitions contained in Article 22 does not automatically lead to recognition as a refugee, but might be relevant to the overall assessment of risk on return.DECISION AND REASONSDate 2017-07-19
[1]This appeal raises issues relating to the duty of confidentiality and the proper scope of inquiries to authenticate documents during the examination of a protection claim. Background[2]The appellant is a citizen of Sri Lanka who entered the UK on 29 September 2014 with entry clearance as a Tier 4 (General) Student Migrant, which was valid until 30 October 2017. He claimed asylum on 24 November 2014. The respondent refused the application on 30 December 2014. First-tier Tribunal Judge Telford dismissed the appeal in a decision dated 03 February 2015. On 27 February 2015 Upper Tribunal Judge Southern concluded that the First-tier Tribunal decision disclosed an error of law because the First-tier Tribunal Judge failed to appreciate that an adjournment application was made to enable time for further enquiries relating to evidence from Sri Lanka. The decision was set aside and the appeal remitted for a fresh hearing in the First-tier Tribunal.[3]First-tier Tribunal Judge Chana re-heard and dismissed the appeal on 16 March 2015. The appellant appealed to the Upper Tribunal. In a decision dated 23 July 2015 Upper Tribunal Judge Gleeson and Deputy Upper Tribunal Judge Mahmood (“the panel”) concluded that the First-tier Tribunal decision involved the making of an error of law because the judge failed to give adequate reasons and erred in rejecting the evidence produced by the appellant from a lawyer in Sri Lanka because she had already found his account was not credible.[4]The panel set aside the decision and directed it to be remade in the Upper Tribunal. The appeal was delayed while the parties made inquiries and sought to produce further evidence from Sri Lanka. The appeal was eventually relisted for hearing before this panel.[5]The appellant attended the hearing and gave evidence with the assistance of a Tamil speaking interpreter. He was asked questions about his reasons for claiming asylum. The relevant details of the evidence given by the witness are incorporated into our findings of fact.[6]We have considered the appellant’s grounds of appeal, the oral and documentary evidence, the skeleton arguments and oral submissions as well as the reasons given for refusing the application before coming to a decision in this appeal.

Cited in 2 later judgments