Li v Secretary Of State For Home Department

Permission to appeal from an immigration tribunal should be refused where the proposed grounds disclose no material point of law. The Court of Appeal will not reopen an adjudicator’s assessment of the evidence merely because the appellant disagrees with it. An Article 8 assessment is distinct from the refugee inquiry. Where the adjudicator has addressed Article 8 separately, considered the evidence as a whole, and concluded that it does not establish a significant risk of interference with Convention rights, that conclusion is not unlawful merely because the evidence could be argued differently.

The appellant, a Chinese citizen refused admission as a refugee, applied for permission to appeal from a determination of the Immigration Appeal Tribunal. The Tribunal had dismissed his appeal concerning alleged risks from Snakeheads and had found no material error in the adjudicator’s treatment of his other grounds.

On the renewed application, the appellant relied principally on Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The issue was whether the adjudicator’s conclusion, based on the evidence before her, disclosed an arguable point of law.

1. Application refused unanimously. The Court of Appeal declined to grant permission to appeal.
2. The adjudicator was entitled to assess the evidence and conclude that it did not establish a real risk of breach of Article 8 rights. The Court could not accept that the evidence made that conclusion legally unavailable.
3. This was not a case in which the adjudicator had failed to understand the requirements of Article 8 or had merged the Article 8 inquiry with the refugee-status inquiry. She had addressed Article 8 separately and was simply not satisfied that the evidence disclosed a significant Article 8 problem.
4. The Immigration Appeal Tribunal had been entitled to uphold the adjudicator’s conclusion and no material point of law was raised. The Court also observed that documents said to be necessary for an appeal should be filed with the appellant’s notice, particularly given the prompt way in which applications were then dealt with.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): renewed application for permission to appeal refused.
• Immigration Appeal Tribunal: appeal dismissed; the Tribunal found no material error in the adjudicator’s determination.
• Adjudicator: application dismissed on the refugee, protection and Article 8 grounds.