Bahrami, R (on the application of) v Immigration Appeal Tribunal

An adjudicator must give sufficient reasons to enable the claimant, advisers and any reviewing or appellate body to understand why the claimant lost on a material issue. The determination should be read as a whole, analytically but without pedantry and in a common-sense manner. It need not address every point at length or follow a rigid checklist. In an Article 3 case, the reasoning must show that the adjudicator considered the alleged punishment, including relevant prison conditions and duration, but a conclusion that the Article 3 threshold is not met may be lawful where the determination adequately explains the assessment. The court must not rewrite the adjudicator’s reasons.

The claimant, an Iranian citizen, challenged the refusal of leave to appeal by the Immigration Appeal Tribunal. An adjudicator had dismissed his asylum and human-rights appeals, accepting that he might be imprisoned for desertion but finding no reasonable likelihood that the punishment would breach Article 3 of the Convention. The claimant argued that the adjudicator had failed to consider Iranian prison conditions and had given inadequate reasons. The Tribunal refused leave, finding no real prospect of success and no other compelling reason for an appeal. The issue was whether the adjudicator and Tribunal had lawfully addressed the risk that punishment and prison conditions would amount to inhuman or degrading treatment.

1. Application dismissed. The Tribunal’s refusal of leave disclosed no legal error. It was open to the Acting Vice-President to conclude that an appeal had no real prospect of success and that there was no other compelling reason for it to be heard.
2. The essential requirement was that the adjudicator’s determination be sufficiently reasoned to enable the claimant, advisers and any appellate or reviewing body to see why the claimant lost on the particular issue. It was unnecessary to deal with every point at length.
3. The determination had to be read as a whole, analytically but without pedantry and in a common-sense way. The court had to resist consciously or subconsciously rewriting the adjudicator’s reasoning.
4. The structured approach suggested in R v Immigration Appeal Tribunal ex parte Amin [1992] Imm AR 367, requiring identification of accepted, rejected, unresolved and irrelevant evidence, was not an obligatory checklist where the determination already satisfied the general requirement of adequate reasoning.
5. The adjudicator had considered Iranian prison conditions, including their physical features and the possible length of imprisonment. Her findings that the claimant lacked continuing political significance, that prosecution for desertion was likely, and that the expected punishment would remain within military discipline sufficiently explained why the Article 3 threshold was not met.
6. Permission to appeal was refused because there was no real prospect of success. The request for legal aid assessment was to proceed on the basis that the relevant certificate was filed within seven days.

• High Court (Administrative Court): The judicial review challenge to the Immigration Appeal Tribunal’s refusal of leave was dismissed. Permission to appeal was refused.
• Immigration Appeal Tribunal: Leave to appeal from the adjudicator’s determination was refused on 15 July 2002.
• Adjudicator: The claimant’s asylum and human-rights appeals were dismissed on 10 June 2002.