Sajfudinov v Secretary Of State For Home Department

An earlier asylum assessment does not automatically determine a later assessment where country conditions may have changed. Tribunals must assess risk at the relevant later date. Where material evidence identifies a gap between central-government reforms and conditions at local level, the Tribunal must explain how that evidence has been evaluated. A failure to address the gap clearly may make the determination arguably defective and justify permission to appeal.

The appellant, an ethnic Serb from Croatia and former Serbian conscript, claimed asylum after experiencing harassment and death threats from individual Croats. His case was that the Croatian authorities were unable or unwilling to protect him. The Secretary of State refused the claim on 17 August 1999. A special adjudicator dismissed his appeal on 11 July 2000, and the Immigration Appeal Tribunal dismissed a further appeal on 13 October 2000.

The renewed application concerned the alleged risk to former Serbian soldiers and the general situation for Serbs in Croatia. The central issue was whether the Immigration Appeal Tribunal had adequately assessed evidence that political reforms at central-government level had not sufficiently reached local authorities.

Permission to appeal was granted. Lord Justice Laws considered that the applicant had raised two issues: the particular risk allegedly faced as a former Serbian conscript, and the general situation for ethnic Serbs in Croatia.

1. As to changing country conditions, Laws LJ agreed with the principle that, in a constantly changing situation, there is no legal parity between one asylum decision and the next. A Tribunal must not assume that an earlier assessment of persecution risk determines the position at a later date.
2. The Immigration Appeal Tribunal’s determination was generally full and careful. However, its conclusion relied in part on the UNHCR’s promotion of the return of ethnic Serbs, while the material before it identified a gap between reforms at central-government level and conditions at local and county level. The UNHCR had advised continued caution about return.
3. Although the Tribunal referred later to the need for caution, it did not clearly explain what it made of the identified gap. Given the anxious scrutiny required in asylum cases, it was just arguable that the determination was defective for want of a clear explanation of its treatment of that material evidence. That arguable defect was sufficient for permission to appeal.

The court made no final determination of the asylum claim. Permission was granted, with legal aid assessment of the applicant’s costs.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Sedley LJ refused permission on the papers on 5 January 2001. On renewal, Laws LJ granted permission on 14 February 2001.
2. Immigration Appeal Tribunal: Dismissed the appeal on 13 October 2000 and refused permission to appeal on 13 November 2000.
3. Special adjudicator: Dismissed the appeal against the Secretary of State’s refusal of asylum on 11 July 2000.
4. Secretary of State for the Home Department: Refused the asylum claim on 17 August 1999.