Hadadi v Secretary Of State For the Home Department

On an application for permission to appeal, an asylum challenge has a real prospect of success where objective country evidence makes it properly arguable that the tribunal’s assessment of persecution risk rested on speculative assumptions about how foreign police would behave. The relevant issue is the authorities’ perception of the applicant, including how alleged financial dealings with an extremist group may be interpreted. A lack of evidence about similarly situated persons does not necessarily justify concluding that they were not ill-treated.

The applicant challenged an Immigration Appeal Tribunal decision concerning the risk of persecution if he were returned to Algeria. A proposed ground concerning persecution by non-State agents was no longer pursued. The remaining ground alleged that the tribunal had acted irrationally by making speculative findings about the risk of police ill-treatment where the applicant might be suspected of willingly giving money to an extremist Islamic group.

The central question was whether that challenge was arguable and had a real prospect of success.

Per Lord Justice Keene:

1. The proposed ground concerning persecution by non-State agents was abandoned and required no determination.
2. The challenge to the tribunal’s assessment of police ill-treatment was properly arguable. Objective general evidence concerning Algerian police treatment of persons suspected of involvement with terrorist groups provided a real basis for questioning the tribunal’s assumptions.
3. The relevant consideration was the perception of those in authority, rather than whether the applicant was in fact a genuine supporter of the extremist group. It was arguable that the tribunal had assumed an unduly rational response from the police. The applicant’s financial difficulties might not protect him from suspicion; they could instead be viewed as evidence of support and dedication to the group’s objectives.
4. The absence of evidence about what had happened to 11 other traders who had given money to the group did not necessarily establish that they had avoided ill-treatment. Their detention, and the absence of evidence that they had been released before the applicant left Algeria, left the tribunal’s conclusion open to challenge.
5. On that basis, it was arguable that the applicant might face a real risk of persecution for a Convention reason if returned to Algeria. Permission to appeal was granted. The application was allowed, with a legal aid assessment of the applicant’s costs. The merits of the appeal were not determined.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Permission to appeal from an Immigration Appeal Tribunal decision was granted. The application was allowed.