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

In assessing whether an asylum adjudicator has addressed risk on return, the determination must be read fairly and as a whole. An express finding in a separate paragraph is unnecessary where the reasoning makes clear that the adjudicator considered the relevant risk and concluded that the claimant could obtain effective protection on return. A judicial review claim discloses no error of law where it relies on an artificial reading of the determination.

The claimant sought judicial review of the Immigration Appeal Tribunal’s refusal of permission to appeal against an adjudicator’s dismissal of his asylum claim. The adjudicator accepted that the claimant was a member of the minority Ashraf clan and had lived in Somalia, but concluded that he had been absorbed into and protected by the majority Marehan clan through his relationship with Sheikh Abdi. The claimant argued that there was no finding on current risk on return or on the continuing availability of that protection. The central issue was whether the adjudicator had failed to address risk on return.

1. Claim dismissed. The claimant’s explanations for the delay in bringing the judicial review claim were unsatisfactory, but permission had already been granted and could not be revisited.
2. The adjudicator’s determination had to be read fairly and as a whole. On that reading, the adjudicator had addressed the question of risk on return. The findings that the claimant had been granted the Sheikh’s protection, was no longer at risk as a minority-clan member, and could avail himself of that protection made the conclusion sufficiently clear.
3. The adjudicator was entitled, on the material before him, to conclude that the claimant could return to the Sheikh’s protection. The fact that the reasoning proceeded from the circumstances existing when the claimant left Somalia did not demonstrate that the adjudicator was unaware of, or failed to perform, the obligation to assess return risk.
4. The proposed appeal grounds did not disclose an error of law in either the adjudicator’s determination or the Tribunal’s refusal of permission. The usual order as to costs was made, subject to the claimant’s public funding.

1. Adjudicator: dismissed the claimant’s asylum claim, accepting his Ashraf-clan membership but finding that he could obtain protection through Sheikh Abdi and the Marehan clan.
2. Immigration Appeal Tribunal: refused permission to appeal on 21 May 2003.
3. High Court (Administrative Court): dismissed the judicial review claim.