Celkupa v Secretary of State for the Home Department

In an asylum appeal, the tribunal must assess the individual claimant’s risk against the relevant objective country evidence. Where that evidence shows materially different conditions between municipalities, local evidence may properly carry substantial weight. A general report expressing concern about a category of persons does not necessarily undermine a tribunal’s conclusion based on detailed, location-specific evidence, particularly where it contains no additional facts or evidence of changed conditions.

A tribunal is not generally required to investigate issues that the claimant did not raise, such as risks at an intended point of arrival or during onward travel. The burden remains on the claimant to establish the claimed risk. Earlier absence of persecution may support the assessment, although changed country conditions may significantly affect the weight of that factor.

The appellant, a Kosovo national of mixed Albanian and Roma ethnicity, claimed asylum on the basis of feared persecution by Serb forces and, later, by the KLA because of his mixed parentage. The Secretary of State refused the claim. An adjudicator dismissed the appeal, and the Immigration Appeal Tribunal dismissed a further appeal, accepting that some risk existed but finding that the appellant had not established the required level of risk.

The appellant challenged the Tribunal’s reliance on detailed country evidence concerning his home municipality and argued that it had failed to consider the risks he might face in Pristina and while travelling to his home area. The central issues were whether the Tribunal’s assessment disclosed an error of law and whether it was required to consider matters not raised by the appellant.

Appeal dismissed. Dyson LJ gave the judgment, with Park J agreeing.

1. The Tribunal was entitled to assess the appellant’s individual circumstances against the location-specific evidence in the February UNHCR assessment. That evidence showed that the risk faced by persons of part Roma ethnicity varied between municipalities. The Tribunal could infer from the absence of reported difficulties concerning Roma in Decan that there were no particular problems sufficient to be mentioned.
2. The Tribunal’s failure expressly to address the later March UNHCR report did not disclose an error of law. Although that report expressed general concern about persons of mixed ethnicity and Roma, it did not purport to show that conditions had changed since the detailed February assessment, and contained no additional factual material helpful to assessing this appellant’s particular risk in Decan.
3. The appellant’s skin colour did not undermine the Tribunal’s reasoning. The Tribunal had not concluded that he was safe because his mixed ethnicity would be undetectable. Its conclusion was that, notwithstanding his part Roma origin, the evidence did not establish that his risk crossed the requisite threshold.
4. The Tribunal was not required to consider of its own motion whether the appellant would be at risk in Pristina or during the journey to Decan. Those matters had not been raised before the adjudicator or Tribunal, and the appellant had provided no evidence about the proposed route or circumstances of travel. The burden of proof rested on him.
5. The Tribunal was entitled to take account of the appellant’s lack of previous persecution as additional support for its conclusion. However, because conditions in Kosovo had changed fundamentally since his departure, that factor could carry great weight.

The appeal was dismissed. There was no order for costs, subject to a public funding assessment of the appellant’s costs.

1. Immigration Appeal Tribunal: dismissed the appeal against the adjudicator’s decision, finding that the appellant had not discharged the burden of proof.
2. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): dismissed the appeal and made no order for costs.