Muiruri, R (on the application of) v Immigration Appeal Tribunal

On a renewed application for permission to appeal in an asylum case, an arguable error of law must be identified in the adjudicator’s determination. A reviewing court should examine whether the adjudicator conducted an appropriate inquiry into the evidence and was entitled to reach the factual and credibility findings made. Where the adjudicator’s assessment is properly reasoned and supported by the evidence, disagreement with the factual conclusions does not establish an arguable point of law. Permission to appeal should then be refused.

The applicant arrived in the United Kingdom in 1997 and claimed asylum. After returning on 9 January 1998, she claimed asylum as an unaccompanied minor. The Secretary of State refused the claim, and a special adjudicator dismissed her appeal. The Immigration Appeal Tribunal refused permission to appeal.

Mr Justice Jackson refused permission for judicial review on the papers. Mr Justice Cresswell refused permission on an oral renewal, finding no grounds to interfere with the Tribunal’s decision. The applicant renewed the application before the Court of Appeal, but neither she nor her representatives attended. The central issue was whether the adjudicator’s treatment of the evidence disclosed an arguable error of law.

Application refused. The Court of Appeal considered the renewed application on its merits despite the applicant’s absence. It had declined to adjourn the hearing after being informed that the applicant and her representatives would not attend.

1. The relevant question was whether an arguable error of law had been shown in the special adjudicator’s determination. It was that determination in which the error had, in substance, to be identified before permission to appeal could be granted.
2. The adjudicator had conducted an appropriate and detailed inquiry into the evidence. He gave reasons for finding the applicant’s account and her aunt’s evidence incredible. He also considered the evidence concerning scars and the issues in the case as a whole.
3. On those matters, the adjudicator was entitled to reach the conclusions he did. The Court agreed with the Immigration Appeal Tribunal, Mr Justice Jackson and Mr Justice Cresswell that no arguable point of law had been identified.

Permission to appeal was dismissed. The transcript was to be supplied to the applicant at public expense.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): The renewed application for permission to appeal was considered on the merits and dismissed; no arguable point of law was identified.
2. High Court, Administrative Court: Mr Justice Cresswell refused permission to apply for judicial review in a judgment dated 8 November 2001.
3. High Court, Administrative Court: Mr Justice Jackson refused permission to apply for judicial review on the papers.
4. Immigration Appeal Tribunal: Permission to appeal from the special adjudicator’s determination was refused on 9 May 2001.
5. Special adjudicator: The applicant’s asylum appeal was dismissed; the determination was signed on 24 February 2001.