Degirmenci v Secretary of State for the Home Department

In an asylum appeal, the low standard of proof concerns whether there is a real risk of persecution. It does not require every disputed evidential detail to be accepted as fact. A decision-maker may assign each item of evidence the weight considered appropriate. Internal relocation cannot answer a claim where there is a real risk of detention and ill-treatment on arrival before the claimant reaches the proposed place of safety. Where objective country material raises a material risk on return, the tribunal must address the relevant evidence and give reasons for conclusions that appear counter-intuitive. An unadmitted report cannot be considered indirectly through counsel’s submissions without the proper procedural basis.

The appellant, an Alevi Kurdish Turkish national, claimed asylum after alleging repeated detention and severe ill-treatment. The adjudicator accepted that he faced persecution in his home province but found that he could relocate internally to Ankara. The adjudicator and the Immigration Appeal Tribunal rejected the claimed risk on return and at the airport. The IAT dismissed the appeal and refused permission to appeal. The Court of Appeal granted permission on the risk-on-return and standard-of-proof issues. The central question was whether the tribunals had adequately assessed the risk that the appellant would be identified, detained and ill-treated at Ankara airport.

Appeal allowed. Sedley LJ gave the leading judgment. Nourse LJ and Buxton LJ agreed. The case was remitted to a differently constituted Immigration Appeal Tribunal, initially before the President for directions. The respondent was ordered to pay the appellant’s costs, subject to detailed assessment.

1. Standard of proof. Although it had not been necessary to hear argument on the issue, Sedley LJ stated that the low standard of proof in asylum cases relates to the establishment of risk. It does not set a threshold above which every evidential element must be treated as fact. Each element may be given as much or as little weight as the decision-maker considers appropriate, consistently with Sivakumaran [1988] IMM AR 147 and Karanakaran [2000] 3 ALL ER 449. The adjudicator had applied the real-possibility standard when deciding whether the appellant had a well-founded fear of persecution.
2. Unadmitted evidence. The Court would not treat a specialist report, introduced without permission after the tribunal decisions, as evidence or have indirect regard to it through counsel’s submissions. There was no agreement about its contents and no good reason had been given for its absence below.
3. Internal relocation. If there is a real risk of detention and ill-treatment on return, internal relocation is not a realistic option because the claimant would face persecution or inhuman treatment before reaching safety. The Court adopted the logic applied by Collins J in Suleyman Okur.
4. Failure to give reasons. The objective material raised a material concern about the treatment of returned Kurdish asylum-seekers, including suspected links with the PKK or other organisations. The IAT’s conclusion that the appellant’s HADEP links added no risk was counter-intuitive and required reasons, particularly because the adjudicator had found that his repeated detentions resulted from suspected PKK involvement and HADEP had subsequently been banned for aiding and abetting the PKK. The IAT had not addressed whether past detentions, the raid on the uncle’s home, the appellant’s political activities, or the accessibility of the appellate decisions could lead to identification and detention at the airport. The question whether earlier IAT decisions could constitute factual precedents was left open.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): In [2004] EWCA Civ 1553, the appeal was allowed and the case remitted to a differently constituted Immigration Appeal Tribunal.
• Immigration Appeal Tribunal: Dismissed the appellant’s appeal and refused permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal.
• Adjudicator: Dismissed the asylum and human rights appeals on the basis that the appellant could relocate internally to Ankara and would not face persecution on return.