Atugonza v Secretary of State for the Home Department

Permission to appeal should be granted where the grounds raise a properly arguable issue requiring consideration by the full court. This includes a challenge that an appellate immigration tribunal failed to engage rationally with whether the evidence supported a finding that return involved no real risk of persecution. A brief rejection without a rational explanation may make the issue properly arguable.

The applicant sought permission to appeal, with an extension of time also identified in the application heading, following proceedings before an adjudicator and the Immigration Appeal Tribunal. The proposed appeal concerned whether the adjudicator could properly find on the evidence that there was no real risk of persecution on return. The applicant argued that the tribunal had dealt with that issue in only two or three sentences and had failed to explain rationally why the ground was rejected.

Application granted. Lord Justice Keene gave the reasons, with which Lord Justice Kennedy agreed.

1. The grounds were properly arguable and required the attention of the full court. The principal issue was whether the adjudicator could properly find on the evidence that there was no real risk of persecution on return.
2. The Immigration Appeal Tribunal appeared to have addressed that issue in only two or three sentences. It effectively failed to give a rational explanation for rejecting the relevant ground.
3. That alleged failure was sufficient to justify permission to appeal.

The formal order was: application granted.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division) — Permission to appeal granted. The court considered arguable a challenge to the Immigration Appeal Tribunal’s handling of the risk-of-persecution issue. [2002] EWCA Civ 1585.
2. Immigration Appeal Tribunal — Its decision was under challenge; no citation is stated in the judgment.
3. Adjudicator — The underlying finding was that return involved no real risk of persecution on the evidence.