[2023] UKUT 00163 (IAC)

HL is a national of India who entered the United Kingdom with her children as a visitor in December 2011. She sought asylum in 2015, asserting a fear of her former husband. The Secretary of State refused the application in the same year.

Judge of the First-tier Tribunal Haria dismissed HL’s appeal by a decision dated 17 February 2016. At the time of the hearing, HL’s elder son was an adult, and her younger son was aged 16. Judge Haria concluded that it was in the best interests of the younger son that he reside with, and be brought up by, his mother until he reached adulthood. It was noted that he had spent most of his life in India, and with the aid of his mother could integrate back into life in that country on return.

The elder son was removed to India. He subsequently secured entry clearance as a spouse, permitting him to return to this country where he lawfully resides.

The younger son claimed asylum on 11 September 2017, having turned 18. The application was refused and certified by the Secretary of State as clearly unfounded on 17 February 2018. Further representations were lodged on 13 March 2019. The Secretary of State concluded by a decision dated 8 July 2019 that the representations did not amount to a fresh claim under paragraph 353 of the Immigration Rules.

HL submitted further representations in January 2020, asserting that she could not return to India consequent to her conversion to Christianity. She stated that she had commenced attending church services in January 2018 and was baptized in April 2019. By a decision dated 2 June 2021 the Secretary of State accepted that the further submissions constituted a fresh claim but refused to recognise HL as a refugee and grant her attendant leave to remain

The appeal came before the Judge sitting at Hatton Cross on 19 April 2022. HL was represented by Mr. Hawkins. The Secretary of State was represented by counsel, Mr. Gazzain. HL gave evidence as did a reverend from her Pentecostal church. HL’s elder son attended the hearing and gave evidence, along with his wife. The couple were cross-examined, but not as to their willingness and ability to relocate to India with HL.

The focus of the Secretary of State’s submissions before the FtT was the genuineness of HL’s conversion to Christianity. Alternatively, it was submitted that there was no risk to her if she relocated to Goa, which has a large Christian population. No reference was made by counsel for the Secretary of State in his closing submission to either son being able to relocate to India with their mother. Indeed, the Secretary of State’s recorded position was that the children could keep in touch with their mother and visit her in India on occasion.

The Judge found HL to be a genuine convert to Christianity who through her commitment would practice her religion openly on return to India and look to inform others about Christianity. He accepted that she would be vulnerable upon her return to India due to a lack of family support and concluded that she would face persecution from non-state agents consequent to her religion, with no sufficient State protection being available to her. On the facts arising there was found to be no internal relocation alternative available in Goa, as HL would be lost in an unfamiliar area of India, would not enjoy access to the support that she requires and would be vulnerable to such an extent as to make relocation unduly harsh.