Mashoko v Secretary Of State For Home Department

In an asylum appeal, an adjudicator’s decision must be read as a whole. An error of law may include an internally irrational conclusion, but a tribunal may accept general country conditions and some low-level political involvement while rejecting the claimant’s account of personal attacks and political prominence. Acceptance that a claimant may have been caught up in violence does not, without more, establish that violence was directed at him or that he faces a future risk of persecution or ill-treatment. Credibility findings may accept some aspects of evidence and reject others. Where the determination rationally explains why claimed persecution is not accepted, disagreement with that assessment does not establish an error of law.

The applicant, a Zimbabwean national and supporter of the Movement for Democratic Change, claimed asylum after alleging that persons linked with ZANU-PF had seriously assaulted him on three occasions. The adjudicator accepted the broadly adverse political and social conditions in Zimbabwe and that the applicant might have had some low-level involvement with the opposition, but rejected his account of personal attacks and political prominence. The Immigration Appeal Tribunal supported the adjudicator’s reasoning. The applicant sought permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal, alleging that the determination was internally irrational because of the facts it accepted. The central question was whether the adjudicator had made an error of law.

1. Disposition. Lord Justice Schiemann refused permission to appeal. There was no order for costs.
2. The Court of Appeal’s task was to determine whether the adjudicator had made an error of law. That concept was sufficiently wide to include an internally irrational decision. It did not, however, permit the court to substitute its own assessment of credibility for that of the adjudicator.
3. The adjudicator’s determination had to be read in the round. The adjudicator accepted the general situation in Zimbabwe, including intimidation and serious assaults by ZANU-PF supporters. He also accepted that the applicant might have been involved to some extent in local MDC activities and might have been caught up in violence. Those findings did not amount to acceptance that the applicant had been personally attacked as claimed.
4. The adjudicator had expressly rejected the applicant’s claimed political significance and account of the three assaults. The reference to involvement in violence was imprecise, but in context referred to participation in a crowd protesting against ZANU-PF matters. It did not logically establish that violence had been directed at the applicant or that he would face a future risk of persecution, death, ill-treatment or degrading treatment.
5. The determination therefore contained no internal inconsistency or irrationality capable of amounting to an error of law. There was no realistic prospect of establishing such an error before the full court.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division). Permission to appeal was refused by Lord Justice Schiemann on 7 November 2002: [2002] EWCA Civ 1699.
2. Immigration Appeal Tribunal. The Tribunal heard an appeal from the adjudicator and supported the adjudicator’s reasoning.
3. Adjudicator. Mr King rejected the applicant’s refugee claim, finding that he had exaggerated his political significance and did not face the claimed personal risk on return.