Shevyakov v Secretary Of State For Home Department

On an application for permission to appeal, the Court of Appeal will interfere with an Immigration Appeal Tribunal’s factual findings only where an arguable error of law is shown. A tribunal may assess documentary evidence, including obvious differences between signatures, without improperly acting as a handwriting expert. Where the evidence does not establish a material fact central to an asylum claim, refined questions about the movement of the burden of proof do not arise. The tribunal may refuse an adjournment where the applicant has had a substantial period to obtain supporting evidence.

The applicant claimed asylum in the United Kingdom, alleging that he had been detained in Kazakhstan in December 1998 after refusing to preserve human heads. His account was challenged by evidence concerning criminal proceedings and extradition proceedings in Belgium, and by doubts about documents said to establish his presence in Kazakhstan.

An adjudicator found that the applicant had not shown that he was in Kazakhstan at the relevant time. The Immigration Appeal Tribunal dismissed his appeal on both Refugee Convention and Human Rights Convention grounds, although it disagreed with aspects of the adjudicator’s reasoning. The Tribunal refused permission to appeal. The central issue before the Court of Appeal was whether there was an arguable error of law in the Tribunal’s evidential assessment or its refusal to adjourn.

1. Application dismissed. Lord Justice Pill gave the judgment, with which Lady Justice Hale agreed. The applicant failed to show an arguable error of law in the Immigration Appeal Tribunal’s decision.
2. The Tribunal was entitled to make findings of fact and to assess the documents relied upon as evidence that the applicant was in Kazakhstan at the material time. Pointing out obvious differences between signatures and concluding that the documents did not relate to the applicant did not amount to the Tribunal setting itself up as a handwriting expert.
3. The Tribunal was entitled to take account of the commonness of the applicant’s name, the absence of the asserted patronymic from United Kingdom documents, the lack of supporting evidence from family and friends, and the Belgian proceedings. Those matters supported its conclusion that the documents did not establish the applicant’s presence in Kazakhstan.
4. The Tribunal was entitled to refuse an adjournment, having regard to the lengthy period during which the applicant had been in the United Kingdom and had been aware of the need to obtain evidence.
5. The Tribunal was entitled to conclude that the claim did not get off the ground because there was no evidence of sufficient quality, or prima facie evidence, establishing the applicant’s presence in Kazakhstan at the relevant time. Subtle questions concerning movement of the burden of proof did not arise.

The application for permission to appeal was refused and the order was: application dismissed.

• Immigration Appeal Tribunal: dismissed the appeal from the adjudicator’s decision and refused permission to appeal on 19 December 2001.
• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): refused the application for permission to appeal and dismissed the application.