Demir v Secretary of State for the Home Department

Where the authenticity of an immigration document is challenged, the burden lies on the Secretary of State to show that it is not genuine. That burden does not require direct or expert evidence. The document itself, together with evidence about its provenance and the surrounding circumstances, may provide sufficient evidence. An adjudicator may reject a document where the account of how it was obtained is not credible and the applicant’s wider account is also unreliable. The Court of Appeal will not interfere where the resulting findings are rationally and fairly open to the adjudicator.

The appellant, a Turkish Kurd, claimed asylum in the United Kingdom and relied materially on an alleged Turkish arrest warrant linking him to the PKK. The adjudicator rejected his account as incredible and concluded that the warrant was not genuine. The Immigration Appeal Tribunal dismissed his appeal, holding that the warrant could be rejected without direct or expert evidence if the evidence concerning its provenance was implausible.

The appellant sought permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal, arguing that the Secretary of State had adduced no evidence specifically impugning the warrant and that he could not give direct evidence about how it had come into his father’s possession. The central issues were the burden and standard of proof concerning the warrant and the rationality of the credibility findings.

1. Application dismissed. There were no real prospects of success in the proposed appeal.
2. The burden of proving that an allegedly official document is not genuine lies on the Secretary of State once authenticity is put in issue. That burden may be discharged on the basis of all the evidence. Direct evidence from a document examiner or a person familiar with official procedures in the country concerned is not essential.
3. The provenance of the document was relevant evidence. The adjudicator was entitled to consider the appellant’s hearsay account of how his father had obtained the warrant, despite the appellant’s inability to give first-hand evidence. There was no other evidence explaining how the warrant had come into his possession.
4. The adjudicator had two cogent reasons for rejecting the warrant: the account of its alleged removal from the police station was incredible, and the appellant’s account of his involvement with the PKK was also difficult to credit. Those findings could rationally support the conclusion that the warrant was not genuine.
5. The tribunal had directed itself correctly on the burden of proof and was entitled to reach the same conclusion. The reasoning was valid, and the conclusions were rationally and fairly open to both the adjudicator and the tribunal.

Order: the renewed application for permission to appeal was dismissed.

• Immigration Appeal Tribunal: dismissed the appellant’s appeal on 17 July 2001.
• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): dismissed the renewed application for permission to appeal.