Davila-Puga, R (on the application of) v Immigration Appeal Tribunal

An asylum adjudicator must assess credibility by reference to the evidence as a whole, including relevant documents, expert material and country background. Apparently supportive documents do not compel acceptance of an account where their authenticity and weight have not been independently established and the evidence overall gives substantial reason for doubt.

Judicial review of a tribunal’s refusal of permission remains concerned with error of law. A point omitted from the statutory appeal will not ordinarily make the tribunal’s refusal irrational, unless it was so clear and manifest that the tribunal had to take it itself. An amended refusal letter does not make a binding factual concession unless its terms actually concede the fact.

The appellant, an Ecuadorian national, sought asylum on the basis that he had suffered threats, assaults and detention because of perceived political sympathies and knowledge of governmental corruption. The Secretary of State refused the claim and initially issued a certificate under Schedule 2 to the Asylum and Immigration Act 1993. The certificate was later withdrawn and the reasons for refusal amended.

A Special Adjudicator dismissed the asylum appeal after finding much of the appellant’s evidence not credible. The Immigration Appeal Tribunal refused leave to appeal. Elias J in the Administrative Court refused judicial-review relief on 31 August 2000. The appellant appealed with permission, principally contending that the adjudicator had wrongly separated documentary and expert evidence from the credibility assessment, and seeking to raise a new point about the amended refusal letter.

Decision

1. The appeal was dismissed unanimously. Laws LJ gave the judgment, with which Clarke and Waller LJJ agreed. The Special Adjudicator had committed no reviewable error of law, and the Tribunal’s refusal of leave therefore stood.

2. Credibility in an asylum claim had to be assessed on the evidence as a whole. That included relevant documents, country material and expert evidence. Read in context, the adjudicator’s treatment of the expert report and supporting documents did not show an impermissible prior or compartmentalised assessment of oral credibility.

3. The documents were not self-proving, nor had they been independently demonstrated to be authentic. The adjudicator had given substantial, objectively based reasons for doubting the appellant’s account. He could therefore conclude, after considering the whole case, that the documents did not establish its credibility. He was not required to make a conclusive finding about the authenticity or precise provenance of every document.

4. The adjudicator was entitled to take account of the interval between the alleged loss of employment and the later public financial scandal. He was also entitled to treat the failure of alleged persecutors to carry out threats as one factor bearing on credibility. Neither point had displaced the adjudicator’s overall assessment.

5. Permission was refused for the new ground concerning the amended refusal letter. The point had not been raised before the Tribunal, whose decision was the subject of judicial review. It was not so clear and manifest that the Tribunal had a duty to take it of its own motion.

6. In any event, deletion of passages from the original refusal letter, and a statement that the appellant would receive the benefit of the doubt, did not concede as a fact that the asserted detention had occurred. The court assumed, without deciding, that a genuine factual concession would bind an adjudicator. Since no such concession had been made, the issue did not assist the appellant. Anxious scrutiny did not alter the court’s reviewing role or reveal an error of law.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division). Dismissed the appeal and upheld the refusal of judicial-review relief.
2. High Court, Administrative Court. Elias J refused judicial-review relief on 31 August 2000.
3. Immigration Appeal Tribunal. Refused leave to appeal on 22 April 1999 from the Special Adjudicator’s determination.
4. Special Adjudicator. Dismissed the appellant’s asylum appeal.