Singh v Secretary of State for the Home Department

An appellate court will not interfere with an immigration tribunal’s assessment of future persecution where its conclusions were open on the evidence and no error of law is shown. A procedurally unsatisfactory refusal to receive further evidence will not justify intervention unless the evidence could have materially affected the result.

Past police mistreatment and political activity do not, without a present and Convention-related risk, establish a well-founded fear of persecution. Internal relocation remains a distinct issue. A claimant must identify evidence capable of undermining a finding that relocation elsewhere in the country would be practicable and not unduly harsh.

The appellant, an Indian national from Punjab, sought asylum on the basis of past arrests, torture and police interest arising from Sikh and local political activities. A special adjudicator accepted that he had previously suffered oppressive police conduct, but found that he was not at current risk and could relocate elsewhere in India.

The Immigration Appeal Tribunal dismissed his appeal. It also declined to receive further evidence after reaching its conclusions. The appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal, challenging the assessment of future persecution, the handling of the proposed evidence and, in argument, the finding on internal flight.

1. The appeal was unanimously dismissed. Lord Justice Buxton gave the principal judgment. Lady Justice Arden and Lord Justice Henry agreed.

2. The tribunal’s refusal to hear further evidence was not wholly satisfactory in form. However, the affidavits concerning the appellant’s movements between 1992 and 1996 did not undermine the adjudicator’s findings. The village committee document added no material evidence. The 1999 enquiry could indicate police interest in Punjab, but did not show a wider risk. The evidence would not have altered the tribunal’s conclusion.

3. The tribunal was entitled to find no serious possibility of future Convention persecution. The appellant’s principal activities were long past. He had not attracted police attention after 1992, had left India using his own passport, and his family had continued to live without persecution. Any possible action by an individual police officer with a personal grudge would neither be shown to be a serious possibility nor amount to persecution for a Convention reason.

4. Internal relocation had to be considered separately, even though it overlapped with the assessment of risk in the home area. There was no evidence that this appellant was on police lists circulated throughout India. No ground before the tribunal had challenged the treatment of Dr Rai’s report or the finding on internal flight. The tribunal’s conclusion that relocation was available was therefore not shown to involve an error of law.

5. Lady Justice Arden added obiter procedural observations. Asylum appeals require careful preparation. A party seeking to adduce fresh evidence should make a formal application, provide the proposed evidence in full, and explain its previous absence and reliability. Parties must also comply with applicable time limits for setting down appeals.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Dismissed the appeal and upheld the Immigration Appeal Tribunal’s decision: [2001] EWCA Civ 353.

• Immigration Appeal Tribunal: In October 1999, dismissed the appellant’s appeal and upheld the finding that he faced no present risk of Convention persecution and could relocate internally.

• Special Adjudicator: In October 1998, rejected the asylum appeal after finding that past oppressive police conduct did not establish a present risk and that internal relocation elsewhere in India was available.