Shaheen v Secretary Of State For Home Department

Permission to appeal should be granted where the proposed grounds raise issues fit for consideration on a full appeal and there is a real prospect of success. In an asylum case, arguable errors may include a tribunal’s approach to the availability of protection within the country of origin, its assessment of future risk, and a material factual error affecting its reasoning.

The Immigration Appeal Tribunal allowed the Secretary of State’s appeal against an adjudicator’s decision allowing Nusrat Shaheen’s appeal against removal directions. The adjudicator had accepted that she faced a well-founded fear of persecution in Pakistan arising from threats connected with a proposed forced marriage and accusations of zina, and that the Pakistani authorities could not provide sufficient protection.

The Tribunal rejected her case on the evidence. On a renewed application, the Court of Appeal considered whether the proposed grounds disclosed a sufficient basis for a full appeal.

1. Permission granted. The proposed appeal raised issues fit for consideration by the Court of Appeal on a full hearing. There was a real prospect of success.
2. The first arguable issue concerned whether the Tribunal had directed itself correctly about future protection. The fact that the appellant had previously been rescued and brought to the United Kingdom did not necessarily establish that effective protection would be available within Pakistan.
3. The second arguable issue concerned the assessment of future risk. The Tribunal had focused on the threatened accusation of zina, but it was arguable that it should also have addressed the wider risks relied on, including the risk of an honour killing and the consequences of refusing an arranged marriage.
4. The third arguable issue was whether the Tribunal had made a material error of fact by treating the period before the appellant’s rescue as approximately a year, when her account placed the relevant events in December 1999 and her departure in January 2000.
5. The application for permission to appeal was allowed. The appeal was directed to be heard by a three-judge court, including a High Court judge experienced in asylum law. There was a detailed assessment of the publicly funded applicant’s costs.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division) granted permission to appeal from the Immigration Appeal Tribunal and directed that the substantive appeal be heard by a three-judge court.
• Immigration Appeal Tribunal allowed the Secretary of State’s appeal from the adjudicator’s determination.
• Adjudicator had allowed the appellant’s appeal against removal directions.