Rasic v Secretary of State for the Home Department

In humanitarian and asylum cases, decisions should be based on the best available and most up-to-date information. Where a closely related claim may materially affect the evidential or legal position, the court may adjourn an application for permission to appeal generally, with liberty to restore. Consistency between related decisions is an important consideration, although the court should not prejudge the eventual merits or whether an arguable error of law has occurred.

The appellant, a Croatian Serb, had been refused asylum by the Special Adjudicator and the Immigration Appeal Tribunal. Both tribunals had accepted her account but concluded that the available country information did not establish a well-founded fear of persecution on return. The Tribunal also found that internal relocation was possible.

When renewing her application for permission to appeal, the appellant relied on developments in her sister’s later asylum claim. That claim involved more up-to-date country information, including a June 2000 UNHCR report, and potentially more compelling evidence concerning their father. Permission to appeal had been granted in the sister’s case. The central issue was whether the appellant’s permission application should be determined immediately or held pending the outcome of the related proceedings.

1. The application for permission to appeal was adjourned generally, with liberty to restore if so advised. The court did not determine whether the Immigration Appeal Tribunal had made an arguable error of law.

2. In cases involving humanitarian issues, decision-makers should proceed on the basis of the best available and most up-to-date information. Subsequent material in the sister’s case could affect the evidential basis on which the appellant’s claim had been rejected.

3. Consistency between two related decisions is an important consideration. It was appropriate to allow the sister’s appeal proceedings to reach their final stage before deciding whether the appellant’s case should be returned to the Secretary of State for reconsideration or restored before the Court of Appeal.

4. The Tribunal’s finding concerning internal relocation might be vulnerable because the issue had not been advanced by the Home Office presenting officer. That issue would matter only if the Tribunal had been wrong on the primary question concerning a well-founded fear of persecution.

The order included a funded client assessment.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): The appellant renewed orally an application for permission to appeal previously refused on paper. The application was adjourned generally with liberty to restore.
• Immigration Appeal Tribunal: The Tribunal dismissed the appellant’s asylum appeal, principally on the basis that the available material did not establish a well-founded fear of persecution on return, and made an additional finding concerning internal relocation.
• Special Adjudicator: The appellant’s asylum claim was refused, despite acceptance of her account.