IA002332020

An anonymity order was made by the First-tier Tribunal. This is an appeal on protection grounds. It is therefore appropriate to continue that 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 her or any member of her family. This direction applies, amongst others, to both parties. Failure to comply with this direction could lead to contempt of court proceedings.

The Appellant appeals against the decision of First-tier Tribunal Judge Gandhi promulgated on 3 June 2021 ("the Decision"). By the Decision, the Judge dismissed the Appellant's appeal against the Respondent's decision dated 17 June 2020 refusing her protection and human rights claims.

The Judge rejected the claim. She did not believe it. She set out at [17] to [26] of the Decision numerous inconsistencies which caused her to reject the claim. I will come to those which are challenged below. The Judge did not need to go on to consider sufficiency of protection or internal relocation as she did not believe the claim. The Respondent had relied on both as additional answers to the claim.

The Appellant challenged the Decision first on the grounds that the Judge had failed to consider the expert evidence and had made errors in relation to the burden of proof. That application for permission to appeal was refused by First-tier Tribunal Judge Neville on 19 August 2021 for the following reasons:

"1. The application is in time. The first of the two grounds in support asserts that the Judge, when assessing the credibility of the appellant's account, failed to have regard to the expert report she had adduced. This is not arguable. A fair reading of the Judge's reasons at [17] clearly shows her to have weighed the consistency of the appellant's account with the expert evidence against its internal inconsistencies.