Mungu v Secretary of State for the Home Department

In an asylum and human-rights appeal, a document alleged to be forged must be assessed as part of the evidence as a whole. The issue is whether the claimant’s case can properly rely on it, rather than whether the Secretary of State proves forgery to a particular standard. The tribunal must consider all material, including oral evidence, documents and country information, and may reject a document with patent flaws for cogent reasons. A grant of exceptional leave to remain to a related person does not, without evidence of its basis, establish a risk on return. The Article 8 question is whether removal interferes disproportionately with family life; family life need not be enjoyed in the United Kingdom if the family can reasonably continue it elsewhere.

The appellant, a citizen of the Democratic Republic of Congo, sought asylum after entering the United Kingdom. Her account depended substantially on her alleged marriage to Mr Mukoka and on persecution connected with his past activities. The adjudicator rejected her evidence, found that her identity card was inauthentic, and concluded that neither her asylum claim nor her Article 8 claim was established.

The Immigration Appeal Tribunal dismissed her appeal. Before the Court of Appeal she argued that the adjudicator had reversed the evidential burden concerning the identity card, failed to investigate why Mr Mukoka had received exceptional leave to remain, and wrongly found no Article 8 interference. The central issues were the proper evaluation of an allegedly forged document, the significance of exceptional leave granted to a spouse, and the effect of removal on family life.

1. Appeal dismissed. The adjudicator was entitled to reject the appellant’s asylum and Article 8 claims on the evidence.
2. Where an apparently genuine document is alleged to be forged, the Secretary of State ordinarily bears an evidential burden of undermining its authenticity. That does not determine the legal issue. The tribunal must decide whether the document can be relied on in support of the claim, considering it with the oral evidence, country material and all other evidence in the round. Failure by the Secretary of State to prove forgery to a specified standard does not establish the document’s validity or contents.
3. The adjudicator was entitled to find that the identity card was not apparently genuine and contained patent flaws. His assessment of the copy, including the apparent completion in one hand, the overlapping photographs and absence of official indicia, supplied cogent reasons for rejecting it.
4. The grant of exceptional leave to remain to Mr Mukoka did not require the adjudicator to obtain or infer its underlying reasons. On the evidence before him, including the absence of adequate details about his arrest, release and departure, he was entitled to find that Mr Mukoka faced no relevant risk on return.
5. Article 8 did not require the family life to be enjoyed in the United Kingdom. Since the adjudicator found no bar to Mr Mukoka returning to the Democratic Republic of Congo with the appellant, removal did not interfere with the family life relied upon.
6. Lord Justice Latham gave the leading judgment. Lord Justice Pill and Mr Justice Morland agreed. There was no order for costs, save for a direction for detailed assessment of the appellant’s costs.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division) — Appeal from the Immigration Appeal Tribunal dismissed: [2003] EWCA Civ 360.
• Immigration Appeal Tribunal — Appeal dismissed on 25 June 2002.
• Adjudicator — Appeal refused on 12 February 2002.
• Secretary of State for the Home Department — Asylum claim refused on 15 January 2001.