E.S. v. SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT

[1] A procedural first hearing called before me on 11 October 2013. Mr Winter appeared on behalf of the petitioners and Mr Gill on behalf of the respondent. The petitioner challenges the decision of the Upper Tribunal Judge dated 21 February 2013 in refusing permission to appeal from a determination of the First Tier Tribunal (FTT). The respondent has intimated that it would be submitted that the test in Eba v Advocate General 2012 SC UKSC 1 ( Eba ) is not met in this case.

[5] The Upper Tribunal judge refused permission to appeal by decision dated 21 February 2013. In paragraph 2 of the reasons it is stated:

"The grounds at (i) also refer to H J (Iran) and R T (Zimbabwe) but these cases are not relevant where the appellant has not shown himself to harbour any anti-government sentiments whether kept discretely to himself or not. Those cases are not authority for the appellant being questioned about the content of his asylum claim on return or his not being expected to lie about his claim on return. It does not appear from the determination or any of the documents on the file that these lines of argument were pursued before the First Tier Tribunal in any event".

[8] I was referred to the Country Guidance case SB (Risk On Return - Illegal Exit) Iran CG 2009 UKAIT 00053 and to paragraphs 11, 33, 34, 45 and 47 to 53. At paragraph 52 the Tribunal said this:

[9] Mr Winter argued that the Upper Tribunal judge had failed to assess the risk to the petitioner in circumstances where, even though he had been disbelieved by the Tribunal, the perception of the Iranian Court to which he would be taken at Tehran Airport (see paragraph 47 and 48 of SB ) would be of a person who had arrived illegally in Iran without a passport or identification documents having claimed asylum in the United Kingdom. The reasons for that claim would be canvassed and the petitioner would be perceived as somebody with anti-regime opinion.