Avci v Secretary Of State For the Home Department

Permission to appeal may be granted where a proposed challenge to an immigration tribunal’s credibility assessment is realistically arguable because a material issue was apparently not raised at the hearing and potentially important evidence was therefore not considered. If the impugned finding could have influenced the tribunal’s assessment of other matters, the appeal is properly arguable. Permission may be granted without restricting the appeal to a single ground.

The appellant sought permission to appeal from a decision of the Immigration Appeal Tribunal concerning his credibility, including whether a PKK demonstration took place in Istanbul on 15 August 2000 and whether he was mistreated in detention in September 2000. It was said that the demonstration issue had not been raised before the tribunal. The appellant argued that, had it been raised, material including Reuters evidence about the continuing significance of 15 August to the PKK might have been adduced. The central question was whether these matters made the proposed appeal realistically arguable, particularly because the credibility finding might have affected the tribunal’s assessment of other issues.

Permission to appeal was granted.

1. Lord Justice Keene considered that there was a realistically arguable challenge to the tribunal’s approach to the appellant’s credibility, particularly its assessment of whether a demonstration occurred in Istanbul on 15 August 2000.
2. If that issue had not been raised at the tribunal hearing, and further evidence would have been produced had it been raised, the material now available could have led the tribunal to reach a different view of the appellant’s credibility on that point.
3. The adverse credibility finding could also have influenced the tribunal’s assessment of other matters. The appellant nevertheless faced difficulty concerning the alleged mistreatment in detention, but there was material he wished to rely on concerning the risk on return of a person who had played a low-level part in the PKK and had recently been arrested and detained.
4. Permission was granted without confining the appeal to any particular ground. The appellant could pursue such grounds as he considered appropriate. The appeal was directed to be heard by three Lord Justices, with public funding, if granted, covering the permission hearing.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Lord Justice Keene granted permission to appeal and directed that the appeal be heard by three Lord Justices.
• Immigration Appeal Tribunal: decision under challenge; the judgment records adverse credibility findings but gives no citation for the tribunal’s decision.