Secretary of State for the Home Department v Haile

On an asylum appeal, the Immigration Appeal Tribunal may reassess objective country evidence and reach a different view from an adjudicator where its jurisdiction permits that course. The question is whether objective grounds make the different view the right one. A current, well-sourced and reliable country report may properly outweigh earlier material, provided the Tribunal considered the evidence and gave adequate reasons. Accepted past detention or ill-treatment, escape, family association and low-level political activity do not necessarily establish a current well-founded fear of persecution. Mere membership of an overseas political organisation, without evidence of activity likely to attract official attention, may likewise be insufficient.

An Eritrean citizen claimed asylum after describing detention, ill-treatment and escape following his father's political activities for the ELF. The adjudicator accepted his account and allowed his appeal on asylum and human rights grounds. The Immigration Appeal Tribunal accepted the credibility findings but allowed the Secretary of State's appeal, relying on more recent country material, including the 2003 CIPU Report, to find no current risk on return. The issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the Tribunal was entitled to take a different view of the objective evidence and whether its reasons were adequate.

Appeal dismissed.

1. Because the adjudicator's determination was promulgated before 9 June 2003, the Immigration Appeal Tribunal's jurisdiction was not confined to errors of law. The applicable question, formulated in Subesh [2004] EWCA.Civ 56, was whether objective grounds persuaded the Tribunal that a different view from that taken below was the right one.

2. The Tribunal was entitled to assess the objective evidence independently of the adjudicator's accepted credibility findings. It considered the more recent CIPU Report for 2003, reports from the US Department of State and Human Rights Watch, and an academic report. It was entitled to prefer the CIPU material because it was well researched, fully sourced, reliable, reasonably impartial and up to date.

3. The objective material did not support a current risk of persecution arising from the appellant's past low-level activities, detention, ill-treatment and escape. Those matters were relevant, but they did not compel a finding that he presently had a well-founded fear of persecution. The absence of evidence that similarly detained family members had subsequently been persecuted was also significant.

4. The appellant's membership of the London branch of the ELF established no activity likely to have brought him to the attention of the Eritrean authorities. His asserted unwillingness to renounce the ELF was therefore insufficient on the evidence. That consideration might have greater significance for a returnee seeking involvement in public life, such as election or appointment as a governor or mayor.

5. The Tribunal's conclusion and reasoning disclosed no material error of law. Its reasons were adequate, and the appeal was dismissed.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Dismissed the appellant's appeal, holding that the Immigration Appeal Tribunal had made no material error of law.
• Immigration Appeal Tribunal: On 15 October 2003, allowed the Secretary of State's appeal and reversed the adjudicator's decision.
• Adjudicator: On 1 November 2002, allowed the appellant's appeal on asylum and human rights grounds.