Mr Tufan relied on the grounds and submitted the judge had given inadequate reasons. In reply to the appellant's rule 24 response, he submitted the case of CI (Nigeria) [2019] EWCA Civ 2027 was decided at the same time as AM (Somalia) [2019] EWCA Civ 744 in which the Court of Appeal concluded that a lengthy period of imprisonment was enough to break integrative links in the UK. On a proper application of Kamara [2016] EWCA Civ 813 , the appellant would be enough of an insider so as to have a reasonable opportunity to be accepted there: Mwesezi [2018] EWCA Civ 1104 . Mr Tufan submitted the judge's findings at [108] were inconsistent and the appellant's inability to speak Somali was not enough to show he could not benefit from the economic boom.
Ms Fisher relied on her rule 24 response and AA (Nigeria) [2020] EWCA Civ 1296 . There was no challenge to the judge's factual findings. The judge had looked at all the circumstances and it was open to him to conclude that prison had not broken the appellant's integrative links. The judge found the appellant was educated and had worked in the UK. Binbuga could be distinguished on its facts. The appellant in the present case was not a persistent offender or gang member. The decision should be read as a whole. The appellant left Somalia when he was one year old and had no close family members there. He lives with his mother and siblings and it was open to the judge to find he was culturally integrated in the UK. The judge's reasons at [107] adequately support this finding.
Ms Fisher submitted that the judge took into account government funding on return to Somalia and found the appellant would benefit from remittances from abroad. He concluded the appellant would not be destitute. However, this was a different test to whether there were very significant obstacles to integration. The appellant was not familiar with how Somali society worked in Mogadishu, he could not speak the language and had no connection to family or minority clan members. Swahili was not an official language. The judge's reasons were adequate and there was no inconsistency. The judge properly applied country guidance and Kamara . There was no error of law.
Conclusions and reasons
I remind myself of Sicwebu v SSHD [2023] EWCA Civ 550 at [49]:
"Appeals to this court from the Upper Tribunal are limited to appeals on a point of law: see section 14(1) of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007. Absent an error of law, the appeal must be dismissed. Furthermore, as a specialist fact-finding tribunal, this court should not rush to find an error of law in the decision of the tribunal simply where it might have reached a different conclusion on the facts: see AH (Sudan) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2007] UKHL 49 , [2008] 1 AC 678 at paragraph 30. I have borne these principles in mind when considering the impugned decision in this case."
The appellant has lived in the UK since he was 12 years old and has attended school and college. He had 10 years' lawful residence before he started offending and served three years in prison and three years on licence. The judge considered the appellant's nature and frequency of offending and the length of time in prison in concluding the appellant is socially and culturally integrated in the UK. The judge gave adequate reasons at [107] for coming to this conclusion.
The judge took into account all relevant matters and properly directed himself in law. His finding that there were very significant obstacles to integration was consistent with Kamara :
" The idea of "integration" calls for a broad evaluative judgment to be made as to whether the individual will be enough of an insider in terms of understanding how life in the society in that other country is carried on and a capacity to participate in it, so as to have a reasonable opportunity to be accepted there, to be able to operate on a day-to-day basis in that society and to build up within a reasonable time a variety of human relationships to give substance to the individual's private or family life. "
The judge found the appellant left Somalia when he was one year old and he has no real experience of how that complex society works. He did not speak Somali and had no family or clan connections in Mogadishu. The judge's findings were open to him on the evidence before him. His reasons at [108] to [112] adequately demonstrate why the judge concluded there were very significant obstacles to integration.
Accordingly, I find there was no material error of law in the decision of 27 April 2022 and I dismiss the appeal.
Notice of Decision
The Secretary of State's appeal is dismissed
J Frances
Judge of the Upper Tribunal
Immigration and Asylum Chamber
July 2023