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

An adjudicator must give reasons for the determination, but is not generally required to give reasons for each reason supporting it. A challenge to credibility findings on judicial review requires more than showing that another conclusion was possible. The claimant must show that the conclusion was one the adjudicator could not reasonably reach. Appellate authorities should read an adjudicator’s reasons as a whole and avoid minute scrutiny where the substance of the reasoning is clear. An expert report may be preferred over other evidence without extensive analysis where it provides only general background evidence and no competing experts have been called. The relevance of evidence concerning persecution of one family member depends on the factual relationship between that evidence and the applicant’s own risk.

The claimant, a citizen of the Democratic Republic of the Congo and a political activist, sought judicial review of the Immigration Appeal Tribunal’s refusal of permission to appeal. The underlying adjudicator had dismissed his asylum and human rights appeals. The claimant challenged the treatment of an expert report, the assessment of his account of detention and release, an alleged error concerning a newspaper report, and reliance on Katrinak. The central issue was whether the Tribunal was entitled to conclude that the adjudicator’s credibility findings could be sustained despite identified errors and disagreements about the evidence.

1. Application dismissed. The Tribunal was entitled to refuse permission to appeal after concluding that the adjudicator’s overall credibility findings could be sustained.
2. The adjudicator had considered the report of Mr Kennes. He was entitled to prefer the CIPU and US State Department reports because Mr Kennes’ report supplied general contextual evidence, was not prepared specifically for the claimant, and Mr Kennes was not called to give evidence. An adjudicator must give reasons for the determination, but need not give reasons for reasons. More detailed analysis may be required where rival experts give evidence or the issue is particularly detailed (paras [31]-[33]).
3. The credibility challenge did not meet the required threshold. It was insufficient that the adjudicator might have reached a different conclusion about the claimant’s second and fourth detentions. The claimant had to show that the adjudicator could not reasonably have reached the conclusions reached, in other words that the findings were perverse. That threshold was not met. The matters had been raised in cross-examination and submissions, and the adjudicator was entitled to prefer the respondent’s account (paras [34]-[35]).
4. The error concerning the date of the newspaper report was immaterial. The difference between four and eight days did not alter the substance of the criticism. The adjudicator had also relied on other concerns about the report, including the apparent failure to mention the public arrest of seven people. The Tribunal was entitled to assess the decision as a whole and its reasons were not to be subjected to minute scrutiny (paras [36]-[38], [41]).
5. Katrinak was distinguishable and irrelevant. It concerned the possibility that persecution of one immediate family member could indirectly persecute another. The claimant’s case instead concerned the risk arising from association with a brother who was not said to be returning to the DRC. The adjudicator had addressed that distinct issue directly (paras [39]-[40]).
6. The claim was dismissed. The usual costs order was made, with detailed assessment of publicly funded costs (paras [41]-[44]).

1. Immigration Appeal Tribunal: refused permission to appeal against the adjudicator’s determination dated 6 February 2003, which had dismissed the claimant’s asylum and human rights appeals.
2. High Court (Administrative Court): refused judicial review of the Tribunal’s decision and dismissed the claim.