Meledge v Secretary of State for the Home Department

When hearing an asylum appeal, the Immigration Appeal Tribunal must take relevant evidence of changed country conditions into account under section 77(3) of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999. An appeal may nevertheless fail where the adjudicator’s credibility findings remain decisive and the updated evidence does not establish a real risk for the claimant’s actual profile. Risk is assessed by reference to the claimant’s past level of political activity, rather than an increased level of activity advanced on appeal. Adjudicators should make clear and express findings on each material factual issue. The renewed application for permission was dismissed because, even assuming an arguable misunderstanding of Oleed [2003] INLR 179, the evidence did not show a sufficient prospect of success.

This was a renewed application for permission to appeal against the Immigration Appeal Tribunal’s dismissal of an asylum and human rights appeal. The applicant, an Ivory Coast citizen, claimed a well-founded fear of persecution because of his alleged membership of the RDR political party, Muslim faith and northern origin. The adjudicator rejected important aspects of his account and concluded that he would not face persecution for a Convention reason. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, relying in part on its understanding of Oleed [2003] INLR 179 and on the absence of a sufficient risk despite changed country conditions. The central issues were whether the Tribunal had misunderstood that decision and whether the updated evidence disclosed a real risk on the applicant’s actual profile.

1. Disposition. Lord Justice Dyson, giving the first judgment, and Lady Justice Arden dismissed the renewed application for permission to appeal.
2. Changed country conditions. The Tribunal arguably misunderstood Oleed [2003] INLR 179. That case concerned whether the Court of Appeal should remit a case to the Tribunal for a rehearing after country conditions had changed. The present issue was whether the Tribunal, when hearing an appeal from an adjudicator, should consider current evidence about the country situation. That evidence was relevant and should have been taken into account under section 77(3) of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999.
3. Credibility and express findings. The adjudicator should have made specific findings about the applicant’s political activity, the reason for his detention, the level of his activity and alleged ill-treatment. Such matters should not ordinarily be left to implication. Nevertheless, the determination implicitly found that his involvement in the RDR was at most low level, that he had not been ill-treated, and that the authorities had no particular interest in him. The adjudicator had also not accepted that he was Muslim, which was fundamental to the claim.
4. Risk on return. The court was prepared to assume that the applicant was an RDR member, but only a low-level member. The evidence relied on did not show that a low-level RDR supporter faced a real risk of persecution. Reports referring to harsh treatment of persons connected with the RDR also indicated that most arrests ended after a few days without ill-treatment. References to harassment of Muslims did not assist an applicant whom the adjudicator had not accepted to be Muslim. Lady Justice Arden added that risk should be assessed by reference to the applicant’s past level of activity, not increased political activity posited for the appeal.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): In [2003] EWCA Civ 1665, dismissed the renewed application for permission to appeal.
• Immigration Appeal Tribunal: By a decision published on 18 July 2003, dismissed the appeal from the adjudicator.
• Adjudicator: By a determination published on 13 September 2002, dismissed the applicant’s appeal against refusal of asylum on asylum and human rights grounds.