IA225862014 & IA225882014

The appellants, who are mother and daughter, appeal to the Upper Tribunal against the determination of First-tier Tribunal Judge O R Williams that was promulgated on 11 September 2014. Judge Williams dismissed their appeals against the immigration decisions of 13 May 2014 to remove them to Pakistan because they had overstayed in the UK and their human rights claims had been refused.

At the end of the hearing I dismissed the appeals but reserved my reasons. The reasons for my decision are set out below.

As to the other argument in respect of the sixth ground, Mr Ansari agreed the fact that the judge inverted the representatives� names on the front page of the determination was not evidence of any lack of anxious scrutiny. I mentioned that in any event it was debatable whether the principle of anxious scrutiny extended to article 8 issues given that it stemmed from the approach to be taken in respect of asylum cases. Because of Mr Ansari�s concession I need not consider the issue any further.

The first ground of appeal argues that Judge Williams erred by finding that the appellants would be able to live with the sister of the first appellant. Mr Ansari, who settled the grounds, argued that this finding ignored the cultural context in which the appellants would be returned. The sister of the lead appellant lived with her in-laws. The Home Office�s own country of origin information indicated that women could not live on their own in Pakistan. Taken together, the evidence had to indicate that it would be unduly harsh to expect the appellants to relocate within Pakistan.

In addition, in relation to the protection issues, I reminded Mr Ansari that there had been no challenge to Judge William�s conclusions that the appellants did not have a well-founded fear of persecution in Pakistan. Therefore the issue of internal relocation was not relevant, it being a finding in the alternative.