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

Credibility findings in an asylum appeal must be supported by rational and legally relevant reasons. An adjudicator must assess the claimant’s evidence fairly and in context. Delay in leaving the country of origin may bear on credibility in some cases, but it cannot be treated as inherently inconsistent with a genuine asylum claim. Similarly, failure to claim asylum in countries crossed during transit cannot, without more, justify rejecting credibility. A refusal of permission to appeal which endorses materially flawed credibility reasoning is itself liable to be quashed.

The claimant, a Kurdish citizen of Turkey, sought asylum in the United Kingdom after describing repeated detention, ill-treatment and assistance to the PKK. An adjudicator rejected her account, principally because she had remained in Turkey after graduating, had left her elderly father, and had not claimed asylum in countries crossed during her journey to the United Kingdom.

The claimant challenged the Immigration Appeal Tribunal’s refusal of leave to appeal. The central issue was whether the adjudicator’s credibility reasoning was rational and fair, and whether the Tribunal was entitled to conclude that it was not arguably flawed.

1. The claim was allowed. The decision refusing leave to appeal was quashed and the matter was remitted to the Immigration Appeal Tribunal to reconsider whether permission to appeal should be granted.
2. The adjudicator’s reasoning on credibility could not stand. The conclusion that wishing to graduate before leaving Turkey was not the kind of statement a genuine asylum seeker would make was irrational. It did not provide a proper basis for rejecting the claimant’s account.
3. The claimant’s continued presence in Turkey after periods of alleged harassment and detention was not necessarily inconsistent with credibility. She had given a reason for remaining, namely caring for her elderly father. More generally, a politically involved person might rationally remain and continue activities for as long as seemed tolerable.
4. The adjudicator’s reasoning concerning the claimant’s father was also unsafe. It was possible that the authorities might have harmed him, but it was open to the claimant to believe that they were unlikely to do so.
5. Failure to claim asylum in countries crossed during transit could not, by itself, cast doubt on whether the claimant was a genuine asylum seeker. The circumstances of travel, including travelling concealed in a lorry to reach the United Kingdom where family members lived, had to be considered.
6. The Tribunal’s statement that the adjudicator was entitled to reach her conclusion for the reasons given was unsustainable in light of those defects. The merits remained for reconsideration, including the possible significance of changed conditions in Turkey and any fresh assessment of the claimant’s account.

1. Adjudicator: dismissed the claimant’s asylum appeal after rejecting her credibility.
2. Immigration Appeal Tribunal: refused leave to appeal on 7 February 2002, holding that the adjudicator had given adequate reasons and was entitled to reach her conclusion.
3. High Court (Administrative Court): allowed the judicial review claim, quashed the refusal of leave, and remitted the matter to the Tribunal for reconsideration.