Ndlovu v Secretary of State for the Home Department

Under section 101 of the Nationality Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, the Immigration Appeal Tribunal may overturn an adjudicator only for an error of law. That requirement applies to the substance of the appeal and is not confined to the permission stage.

An adjudicator's evaluation of the claimant's evidence alongside background material is not an error of law merely because the background material lacks precise corroboration or the findings use slightly different language. A finding of countrywide persecution may independently dispose of internal relocation. Individual asylum decisions are fact-specific and create no general precedent.

The appellant, a Zimbabwean national, claimed asylum on the basis of feared persecution connected with her ethnicity, political opinion and family ownership of a farm. The adjudicator accepted the core account, found a risk of persecution throughout Zimbabwe and concluded that internal relocation would also be unduly harsh.

The Immigration Appeal Tribunal allowed the Secretary of State's appeal, holding that the adjudicator had misunderstood evidence concerning food distribution and treating the error-of-law requirement as relevant only at the permission stage. The appeal concerned whether those conclusions disclosed an error of law, including in relation to internal relocation and the finding of countrywide risk.

The Court of Appeal unanimously allowed the appeal and restored the adjudicator's determination.

1. Statutory jurisdiction. Under section 101 of the Nationality Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, the Immigration Appeal Tribunal could interfere with the adjudicator only on a point of law. The Tribunal was wrong to suggest that the error-of-law requirement arose only when permission to appeal was considered. The Court referred to its recent decision in R (On the application of CA) v Secretary of State for the Home Department.
2. Food evidence. The adjudicator had accepted the appellant's own evidence and evaluated it against background material. The material showed severe food shortages and the use of food distribution as a political tool. The absence of precise evidence that ordinary shops sold food only to party members did not contradict the adjudicator's findings. Any difference between the wording of the appellant's written and oral evidence was immaterial. The Tribunal therefore erred in law in treating the findings as a misunderstanding of the evidence.
3. Internal relocation. The Secretary of State's argument based on [2003] EWCA Civ 1188 was not taken before the Tribunal and was not entertained. The Court added that, even if the appellant were safe from government interference in Beitbridge, it greatly doubted that the internal-relocation reasoning should prevent consideration of a local food shortage merely because similar conditions existed elsewhere.
4. Countrywide risk. The adjudicator's finding of persecution throughout Zimbabwe was a permissible evaluation of the evidence as a whole, including the family's history, murders, land ownership, ethnicity and political activity. No legal error was shown. The Tribunal should not have allowed the Secretary of State's appeal. The respondent was ordered to pay the appellant's costs, subject to detailed assessment, with a public funding order.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division) — On 22 July 2004, allowed the appeal and restored the adjudicator's determination.
• Immigration Appeal Tribunal — Its determination, promulgated on 16 September 2003, allowed the Secretary of State's appeal against the adjudicator.
• Adjudicator — The determination, promulgated on 9 June 2003, allowed the appellant's appeal against refusal of her asylum claim and rejection of her human-rights claim.