Mohammed, R (on the application of) v Immigration Appeal Tribunal & Anor

Judicial review of an Immigration Appeal Tribunal’s refusal of permission to appeal is confined to public-law error. The reviewing court does not re-try asylum facts or credibility. Intervention requires an arguable case that the tribunal was plainly wrong, failed to take account of a legal principle it had to apply, or acted perversely. Where the specialist adjudicator considered the relevant evidence, including medical evidence, disagreement with credibility findings, alleged inconsistencies, or the treatment of further evidence does not establish reviewable error. An application for permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal also requires a real prospect of showing that the High Court judge mishandled the judicial-review application.

The appellant had arrived in the United Kingdom from Nigeria using a forged passport and claimed asylum. A special adjudicator dismissed his appeal against the Secretary of State’s refusal of asylum on 28 May 2002. The Immigration Appeal Tribunal refused permission to appeal on 11 July 2002. The Administrative Court, Maurice Kay J, refused permission to apply for judicial review on 2 October 2002.

The formal ground for seeking permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal was that the adjudicator had failed to consider a medical report, although the oral submissions broadened into a general challenge to the adjudicator’s credibility findings and treatment of the evidence. The central issue was whether the Tribunal’s refusal disclosed a public-law error capable of justifying judicial review.

Lord Justice Brooke, sitting alone, dismissed the application for permission to appeal.

1. The challenge concerned the Immigration Appeal Tribunal’s refusal of permission to appeal, not a direct appeal on the facts of the asylum claim. Judicial review could succeed only if the Tribunal was plainly wrong, failed to take account of principles of law which it ought to have considered, or acted perversely in some other way.
2. The special adjudicator had recorded that he had considered the appellant’s statements, the country material, the interview notes and the medical note and report. He had made detailed findings on credibility, the alleged attacks, the injuries, the Convention claim, State protection and internal relocation. A disagreement with those findings, or an attempt to explain inconsistencies and introduce further evidence, did not demonstrate public-law error.
3. The only formal ground before the Court was therefore incapable of showing that the Administrative Court had been wrong to refuse permission to apply for judicial review. The wider oral criticisms of the adjudicator’s assessment could not convert the matter into an appeal on fact. The appellant had no real prospect of successfully showing that the High Court judge had mishandled the judicial-review application.
4. The request to stay deportation was also refused. The suggested medical and other evidence was unspecified, and there was no reason to interfere with the Secretary of State’s arrangements, even assuming the Court had power to do so.

Order: application for permission to appeal dismissed.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): refused permission to appeal from the Administrative Court’s decision. [2002] EWCA Civ 1911.
2. High Court, Administrative Court: Maurice Kay J refused permission to apply for judicial review on 2 October 2002.
3. Immigration Appeal Tribunal: Vice-President Rapinet refused permission to appeal on 11 July 2002.
4. Special adjudicator: dismissed the asylum appeal on 28 May 2002.