Yildirim v Secretary Of State For the Home Department

An intended appeal from an Immigration Appeal Tribunal will normally end there where the Tribunal has given a properly reasoned and structured decision, unless there is uncertainty about the applicable law. The Court of Appeal should not grant permission merely because the applicant disagrees with the Tribunal’s assessment of the evidence. Where no point of principle or practice arises, and the Tribunal’s conclusion is reasonably open to it, the application should be refused.

The applicant, a Kurdish national of Turkey, claimed asylum and protection under Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights. An adjudicator dismissed his appeal on 4 March 2002, finding that his account of arrests and ill-treatment was implausible and that any punishment for draft evasion would be lawful and proportionate.

The Immigration Appeal Tribunal, presided over by Collins J, dismissed his further appeal on 17 July 2002. It accepted that he might be questioned on return and punished for draft evasion, but found no real risk of persecution or Article 3 ill-treatment. The applicant renewed his application for permission to appeal, alleging that the Tribunal’s conclusions were unsustainable and inadequately reasoned.

1. Application refused. The Court of Appeal refused permission to appeal. Lord Justice Peter Gibson delivered the judgment, and Lord Justice Carnwath agreed.
2. The applicable approach was stated in Koller v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2001] EWCA Civ 1267: a properly reasoned and well-structured Tribunal judgment will normally mark the end of the road unless there is uncertainty about the applicable law.
3. That approach applied. The Tribunal was experienced, scrupulously fair, and properly explained why the appeal failed. It was entitled to reject or attach little weight to the implausible allegation that the applicant had been asked to become an informer.
4. The Tribunal was also entitled to conclude that the applicant’s low-level and dated HADEP activities would not attract the attention of the Turkish authorities, and to take into account the CIPU material that Kurdish origin alone did not establish a higher risk of inhuman treatment.
5. The Court found no uncertainty in the law, no failure to give proper reasons, no unsustainable conclusion, and no point of principle or practice. The application therefore had no real prospect of success.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Permission to appeal was refused. The Court upheld the practical effect of the Immigration Appeal Tribunal’s dismissal of the applicant’s appeal.
• Immigration Appeal Tribunal: Appeal dismissed on 17 July 2002, following the decision of Collins J.
• Adjudicator: Appeal dismissed on 4 March 2002.