Tecle v Secretary of State for the Home Department

Permission for a second appeal from a specialist tribunal will ordinarily be refused where the tribunal identified the applicable legal principle, found the material facts, and applied that principle to them, unless an arguable uncertainty of law or other proper basis is shown. Where an appellant asserts statelessness or inability to obtain nationality documentation, the burden lies on the appellant to establish it. A tribunal may take into account the failure to approach the relevant embassy and make an application supported by appropriate evidence.

The applicant challenged an Immigration Appeal Tribunal determination refusing her appeal against the refusal of her asylum claim. She contended that she would face persecution if returned to Eritrea because of her mixed Eritrean and Ethiopian parentage, and that she was stateless or unable to obtain Eritrean nationality.

The Tribunal found that she was entitled to Eritrean citizenship and had not discharged the burden of proving statelessness or inability to obtain appropriate documentation. She sought an extension of time and permission to appeal, relying partly on information allegedly obtained from the Eritrean Embassy after the Tribunal hearing.

Application dismissed. Lord Justice Brooke granted an extension of time but refused permission to appeal. Lord Justice Tuckey agreed.

1. A properly reasoned and well-structured decision of the specialist Immigration Appeal Tribunal will normally mark the end of the litigation where the applicable legal principle has been correctly stated and the facts clearly set out, unless there is uncertainty about the applicable law.
2. The burden lay on the applicant to establish that she was stateless or was not entitled, or was unlikely, to receive documentation evidencing Eritrean nationality. The Tribunal was entitled to take an adverse view of her failure to contact the Eritrean Embassy in London and apply for citizenship with appropriate witnesses.
3. The later embassy material confirmed that political views, voting in the 1993 referendum, payment of the overseas tax and claiming refugee status abroad were not preconditions to eligibility for Eritrean nationality or an Eritrean passport. The proposed appeal therefore had no reasonable prospect of success.
4. The Court distinguished Tewelde, where the facts were materially different, and applied the approach in Koller.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): granted an extension of time but dismissed the application for permission to appeal against the Immigration Appeal Tribunal determination of 11 March 2002.
• Immigration Appeal Tribunal: refused the applicant’s appeal against the adjudicator’s refusal of her asylum appeal and refused permission to appeal.
• Adjudicator: refused the appeal against the Secretary of State’s refusal of asylum on 12 May 2001.