Erdogan, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department

Consistency and plausibility do not, without more, establish an asylum claimant’s credibility. They also do not prevent a tribunal from rejecting the account as fabricated. A tribunal may rely on significant inconsistencies and fabricated core elements, while taking account of evidence that is otherwise consistent or plausible. Where those core elements are central to the claim, their rejection may justify rejecting the account, or the material parts of it, for practical purposes. The court will not interfere where the tribunal has given anxious consideration to credibility and its conclusion was legally open to it.

The claimant, a Turkish Kurd, sought judicial review of the Immigration Appeal Tribunal’s refusal of permission to appeal against a Special Adjudicator’s dismissal of his asylum appeal. The Adjudicator accepted that much of the claimant’s account was consistent and plausible, but rejected allegations of ill-treatment, political involvement and related matters as incredible or fabricated. The Immigration Appeal Tribunal held that consistency and plausibility were important but not determinative.

The judicial review raised whether the Adjudicator could lawfully find an account consistent and plausible yet incredible, whether the identified inconsistencies justified rejecting the account, and whether the Adjudicator had rejected the whole account or only its core elements. A further issue concerning a concession about risk on return arose only if the credibility challenge succeeded.

1. The application was dismissed. The challenge to the credibility assessment disclosed no error of law.
2. There was no principle that an asylum account satisfying general standards of consistency and plausibility must be accepted as credible. Fabricated evidence may be presented consistently and plausibly. Consistency and plausibility are important factors, but they are not necessarily determinative.
3. The Adjudicator was entitled to identify significant exceptions to the claimant’s general consistency and plausibility, examine their significance, and rely on them in concluding that the account was fabricated. The Adjudicator had given anxious consideration to credibility and had taken account of both the favourable and unfavourable features of the evidence.
4. It made no practical difference whether the Adjudicator’s decision was read as rejecting the whole account or only its identified core elements. The allegations of mistreatment in custody and other central matters were sufficiently significant to justify rejecting the whole story, or the whole of it relevant to the asylum claim.
5. Where numerous and significant features of an account are found to be fabricated, an adjudicator may conclude that the account is, for practical purposes, incredible. Rejection of the core elements may likewise justify rejection of the claim as a whole.
6. The issue concerning the effect of the concession about risk on return did not arise because the credibility challenge failed.

1. Immigration Appeal Tribunal: refused permission to appeal against the Special Adjudicator’s decision.
2. High Court (Administrative Court): dismissed the judicial review claim.