ZN v Secretary of State for the Home Department: AS/17/09/37288

Asylum Support Tribunal decision of Judge Storey on 27 April 2018.

Refusal of Section 95 support – destitution disputed. The respondent is entitled to treat a home as an asset under Regulation 6(5). Assets that can easily be converted to cash (e.g. jewellery) may be considered. In a refusal case the assets must be available or reasonably be expected to be so within 14 days. The appellant’s account must be taken as a whole - even if some of the account appears unlikely, it is not necessarily untrue.
Where issues in the support claim overlap with those in the asylum claim, FTT-AS judges should reach their own findings on the narrow issues before them. Their evaluation of the evidence is not binding on the immigration court. If Entry Clearance Officers have themselves not evidenced assessments of credibility and authenticity, FTT-AS judges are unlikely to be able to make findings of fact on these issues. Appellants can also be expected to take reasonable steps to provide corroborative evidence from their country of origin, although a requirement of supplying certified translations in every case may be disproportionately burdensome. AM (Afghanistan) v S of S (Home) [2017] EWCA Civ 1123 and the duties of the tribunal and respondent towards vulnerable individuals considered. Section 55 Border, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009 is applicable to a decision to refuse S95 support to a family that includes minor children and the decision letter should address how the welfare of the children will be safeguarded. Assurance given by the respondent that such families will not be evicted from S98 accommodation until an assessment has been carried out by Social Services. Appeal successful.

Read the full decision in ZN v SOS AS_17_09_37288

Published 21 May 2018