Case No. UKUT-00226-(IAC)

(12) As noted in [2] above, in its error of law decision, this Tribunal preserved the FtT’s “ positive credibility findings that related to the Appellant’s circumstances in the United Kingdom ”. Having considered the parties’ submissions on this issue t hese, on analysis, are the following : (i) The Appellant was conveyed to the United Kingdom by his ste p grandmother, having been deceiv ed by her into thinking that this was for the purpose of being educated. (ii) The Appellant was a child at the material time, having just attained his 16 th birthday and he was “ under the control of adults ”. (iii) Subsequently he was employed and went from job to job, in circumstances wherein - “… He would have had little choice but to work on the black market as he had no permission to work and needed money to survive. ” (iv) “ He was a child surrounded by adults from his own country and at the very least would have been heavily influenced by them. Clearly he was vulnerable to exploitation. ” (v) The Appellant was initially exploited by adults for the purpose of using him as “ cheap and illegal labour ”. (vi) Subsequently (at some unspecified stage) “ at the most he may have been manipulated ”. (vii) The Appellant’s “SEF” account of his life in the United Kingdom prior to arrest by the police (in September 2012) was truthful. (viii) The Appellant was assisted by adult males of Pakistani origin working in the same industry to move around the country from job to job and, in doing so, he “ … felt he had no choice but to work in these establishments in order to survive ”. (ix) He paid a person for the purpose of using that person’s particulars in the event of the Appellant being encountered by the police. (x) The Appellant “ … was to some degree exploited by adults in the catering industry …. ” (xi) Given his movements and changes of job, “ …. if he was a victim of trafficking this was very much at the lower end of the spectrum. ” (xii) “ I accept that he may have telephoned his step-grandmother’s home shortly after arriving in the UK when he was unhappy with his situation and that he may have been told that a lot of effort had been taken [sic] to get him to the UK and even been threatened by one of his step-grandmother’s nephews. ” (xiii) The nature of this threat was a threat to kill him. (xiv) (As regards the Appellant’s account of events in Pakistan ) “ I accept that he was a child and may not be expected to remember detail or respond in interview as an adult would be expected to do. ”