1

Appeal Number:

HX [1219]

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Heard at Hendon Hearing Centre

On 6th December 2019

Before

Immigration Judge Flannel

Between

Yu Yang
Appellant
and

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT

Respondent

Representation:

For the Appellant: Mr Daniel Ebeku

Mr Daniel Tella

For the Respondent: Ms Asimina Bibe

Ms Neila Ivanauskaite

DETERMINATION AND REASONS

1. The appellant whose date of birth is 1st January 1992 is a citizen of Hong Kong and China.
She appeals the respondent’s decision of 1st October 2019 to give directions for removal
from the United Kingdom and to refuse to grant asylum and/or humanitarian protection.

This judgement is entirely fictitious and for teaching purposes only

 2

The Secretary of States Letter of Refusal

2. In his Reasons for Refusal letter dated 1st October 2019 the Secretary of State sets out the
basis of the appellants claim and his reasons for refusal at Paragraphs 2-9, Page 8 and 9 of
the bundle:

Your application has not been considered by the Secretary of State personally, but by an
official acting on his behalf.

You came to the attention of the authorities when the police came to your flat and arrested
you as an illegal immigrant. You have since claimed asylum on the basis that if returned to
Hong Kong or China you would be persecuted by the authorities on account of your political
beliefs.

Your claim has been given careful consideration. It is however not found to be credible on the
lower standard of proof set out in Sivakumaran [1988] 1 ALL ER 193.

Further, as a ‘deciding authority’ within the meaning of S.8 of the Asylum and Immigration
(treatment of claimants) Act of 2004, the Secretary of State is bound to take into account as
damaging credibility any behaviour of the appellant to which this section applies. Your first
interview was vague and lacking in detail. You said that you could not continue with the
interview. In your second interview, you again would not speak about how you suffered in
Hong Kong.

You left Hong Kong on a false passport. You did not claim asylum in Taiwan, or France. You
have not produced this false passport. You then claimed that you entered the U.K by lorry
and ferry, concealed from the immigration authorities and did not claim asylum in the U.K
until you were arrested in Hendon at your boyfriends flat. This immigration history severely
damages your case. Moreover, your refusal to co-operate with the Immigration Officer in
your screening interview at Yarlswood further damages your credibility.

I turn now to the basis of your claim that if returned to Hong Kong or China that you would
be persecuted by the authorities. The Secretary of State accepts that there are grave human
rights abuses against Muslims in Xingjiang region of China. However, he does not find that
you are a victim of them. You have never been found to break the rules set down by the
authorities in Xingjiang. You moved to Hong Kong at the age of two.

There is no documentary evidence that you were detained by the police in Hong Kong. The
Secretary of State seriously doubts that the police would have given you bail after your
alleged second protest. Further, they allowed you two days which is not credible if they
wanted to detain you.

This judgement is entirely fictitious and for teaching purposes only

 3

The Secretary of State does not believe that you could have acquired your transport and
flights in such a short space of time. The Secretary of State is of the view that you could
have claimed asylum in Taiwan or France. The Secretary of State does not believe that you
are of any interest to the authorities in China. You have never been persecuted there.
However, in view of the Human Rights situation in Xinjiang, the Secretary of State has
decided to return you to Hong Kong.

The Secretary of State does not believe your story for the reasons given above. The Secretary
of State is of the view that you are an economic migrant, evidenced by the fact that you began
to work as soon as you entered the country. You are currently living off the benefits of a U.K
citizen. The Secretary of State does not believe that you would be at any risk on return to Hong
Kong and would not be of any interest to the authorities. Your application of asylum is refused.

The Hearing

3. At the hearing on the 6th December 2019, the appellant gave evidence. She adopted her
interviews and statement of evidence. Her statement added much detail to her interviews. It
was as follows:

I was born in Xingjiang in 1992. My father was very wealthy. He owned a factory which
produced designer clothing. He traded with Hong Kong, Taiwan, and the United Kingdom.
We moved to Hong Kong in 1994.

In 1997 Hong Kong ceased to be a British Colony and returned to the control of mainland
China, on the basis of, “one country, two systems,” whereby the Hong Kong Government
would be based on the rule of law and democratic freedoms. It would remain as it was until
2047.

However, President Xi Jinping was made party leader in 2013 and intruded on our
democratic rights. In 2014 I took part in the Umbrella Protest and was arrested for booing
the Chinese flag. My father paid a huge sum of money for my release. I kept out of trouble
until 2019 when Carrie Lam brought in the Extradition Bill on the 3rd of April 2019. Given
that, and President Xi Jinping's brutality I realised I had to protest as I was in danger of being
extradited. I demonstrated, and was arrested for a peaceful demonstration and warned of
extradition. I was released on bail after 10 days of threats and mental torture.

My father arranged for an agent to take me to the UK to seek asylum. I would be in great
danger of either being returned to Xingjiang where I was born or detained indefinitely in
Hong Kong without a fair trial and labelled as a terrorist. The Chinese Government have
been pursuing the protesters of the Umbrella demonstration for the last 5 years with
vengeance. There will be no hope for me.

This judgement is entirely fictitious and for teaching purposes only

 4

My journey to the UK consisted of a Ferry to Taiwan. I was smuggled out in the early hours
of the morning and crossed the river from Macau to the Northern Airport in Taiwan. I was
enclosed in a box of designer clothes. Although it had holes for air it was very
uncomfortable.

I stayed in Taiwan for one night. I had no fear. My father encouraged me to go to the UK as
it was a matter of time before Beijing imposed its power on Taiwan or President Tsai Ing-
wen would be replaced with a less democratic president. The next morning the agent
provided me with another passport and I flew safely to Paris. I stayed in a safe house on the
outskirts of Paris for 3 days. I was then taken by lorry and ferry to Dover and on to
Streatham where I stayed with a distant uncle.

I got work washing dishes at the Purple Pussycat Night Club. I then moved to Hendon with a
boy I met there. His name is Fred. We were happy together with our 2 cats Marmite, and
Marmalade. He was on benefits.

Unfortunately, the police raided our flat. My boyfriend had been shoplifting. I was
discovered to be an illegal immigrant and arrested and detained in Yarlswood.

I cannot return to Hong Kong or China, the Chinese never forget. I will die. I cannot return to
Taiwan for the reasons I have given.

I love the UK, Hendon is a beautiful place. I love to walk around Sunny Hill Park. One day I
hope to study law at the famous Middlesex University. I also love demonstrating at the
Extinction Rebellion protest in Trafalgar Square. It is so wonderful to have freedom of
speech.

4. She was cross-examined. I heard the submissions from both parties. I have made a full record
of these.

5. In determining this matter I have considered all the evidence before me in the light of the
submissions.

This judgement is entirely fictitious and for teaching purposes only

 5

The Law

6. The asylum claim, in this case, is to be decided under the Asylum and Immigration Appeals
Acts and the Immigration Rules HC725/HC395. These incorporate the 1951 (“Geneva”)
Convention on the Status of Refugees, as amended by the 1967 Protocol. At Article 1(A), a
refugee is defined as any person who: “owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for
reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political
opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is
unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country; or who, not having a nationality
and being outside the country of his former habitual residence.. is unable or, owing to such
fear, is unwilling to return to it”.
7. The onus is on the appellant to show that she is entitled to asylum. In R v Secretary of State
ex-parte Sivakumaran (1988), 1mm AR 147, Lord Keith said: ‘In my opinion the requirement
that an applicant’s fear of persecution should be well-founded means that there has to be
demonstrated a reasonable degree of likelihood that he would be persecuted for a
Convention reason if he returned to his own country’.
8. Showing a real likelihood of persecution is a lesser standard than the balance of probabilities.
The House of Lords approved the words of Lord Diplock in Fernandez v Government of
Singapore [1971] 1 WLR 987 to this effect. Lord Diplock had suggested that the requisite
degree of likelihood could be indicated by words such as “a reasonable chance”, “substantial
grounds for thinking” or “a serious possibility”.
9. I have to assess whether the claim to asylum is well-founded on the evidence as a whole,
going to past, present and future and according to the criterion of reasonable degree of
likelihood as stated above I have also to assess the degree of risk facing the appellant now at
the date of making this determination Sandralingham and Ravichandran [1996] Imm AR 97,
Koyazia Kaj (11038).

10. The documents before me are as follows:

First Screening Interview

Second Interview
Home Office Letter of refusal
The Appellant’s Statement
Dr Xpert’s Report
Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc.) Act 2004
Macdonald's Immigration Law and Practice
Background Material on China and Hong Kong

This judgement is entirely fictitious and for teaching purposes only

 6

Findings

11. I note that the appellant has submitted her psychological report from Dr XPert. Dr XPert did
not offer himself to be cross-examined at this hearing. This undermines the appellant’s case.

12. As for the psychological report by Dr XPert, with the greatest of respect to the renowned
doctor, it is a report on what the appellant has told him. Judges are not bound by expert
reports. My finding is that Dr XPert has been hoodwinked as was the case in IY (Turkey) v
Secretary of State for the Home Department [2012] EWCA Civ 1560.

13. I am bound by S.8 of the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of claimant’s Act 2004 ) to take
into account any behaviour to which this section applies. Having considered the matter
independently of the Secretary of State and in the light of Ms Ivanauskaite’s succinct
submission, my finding is that the appellant’s credibility is completely undermined by her
clandestine entry into this country assisted by an agent and a false passport.
14. I note her subsequent behaviour in not claiming asylum when she arrived in this country.

15. I note her failure to give any adequate information to the Immigration Officer at her first
interview and her refusal to answer the question at her second interview.

16. At the hearing itself, she was insolent and defiant during cross-examination. My finding is that
this pattern of behaviour totally undermined her credibility.

17. She carried no documentation with her to prove her case; for example, a letter from the
police asking her to report to them. I find it incredible on the balance of probability that she
carried no documents with her in view of the fact that her ‘escape’ from Hong Kong was
obviously so well planned. As the daughter of a wealthy businessman she no doubt had a
mobile phone and would have received texts from her father and her agent, thus providing
further documentary evidence for the court.

18. I nevertheless turn to the core of the story. I find it to be totally implausible. Having
considered the matter independently, I am in agreement with the Secretary of State that the
appellant’s story is highly improbable.

19. I find it incredible that the appellant was detained for booing at the Chinese flag. No
reasonable authority would have detained her for this minor behaviour.

This judgement is entirely fictitious and for teaching purposes only

 7

20. The appellant claims that she feared for her life. However, the authorities did not torture her.
Apart from the “trauma”, she claimed to have experienced, nothing happened to her. My
finding is that this story is so strange and unusual that it is highly improbable. If the Hong Kong
Authorities wished to punish the appellant, it is not at all credible that they would have let
her go twice.

21. It is beyond all possible doubt that the appellant’s case is unfounded. There is no objective
foundation of fear of persecution on return to Hong Kong or China.

22. I have considered this whole matter in the round and am convinced that the appellant’s story
is a tissue of lies. She has entered this country illegally. She has stayed illegally. She has in my
view not been open or truthful about her mode of entry into this country or her motives for
doing so.

23. In her statement, it was crystal clear and beyond all reasonable doubt that the appellant was
not fleeing her country for fear of persecution. She displayed an obsession with the British
way of life and has clearly nurtured an ambition to come to this country.

24. Throughout the asylum process, the appellant has been incoherent, inconsistent and has
delayed providing details of material facts. This leads me to draw further adverse conclusions
on credibility.

25. It has been suggested that the appellant has mental or emotional trauma. I have considered
the matter in the round and I totally reject such an explanation of her behaviour. Applying my
own values and common sense, I have come to the conclusion that the said behaviour was a
pretext and I have no doubt whatsoever that she has attempted to hoodwink Dr Xpert in order
to stay in this country and enrich her position. She will not hoodwink me.

26. I have given this case anxious scrutiny as is my duty as set down in Bugdaycay v Secretary of
State for the Home Department [1987] AC 514 case. There is no clear evidence of trauma, and
the speed and manner in which the appellant left Hong Kong defies belief.

27. My finding is that the appellant does not have a well-founded fear of persecution, now or in
the future when she returns to Hong Kong. There is no reasonable likelihood that she will be
sent to China as the Bill on Extradition in Hong Kong has been withdrawn.

28. This appeal is dismissed.

Immigration Judge Flannel

This judgement is entirely fictitious and for teaching purposes only

 8

This judgement is entirely fictitious and for teaching purposes only