Benghellab v Secretary of State for the Home Department

Where an asylum decision turns on internal relocation, the adjudicator must give cogent reasons for preferring one body of country evidence over another. A bare reliance on an expert report, without explaining why competing official evidence is rejected or reconciled, constitutes an error of law. After identifying that error, the Immigration Appeal Tribunal may either determine the issue itself or remit it for reconsideration. It is entitled to assess the country evidence afresh where the factual conclusions reached by the Tribunal are not challenged. A renewed application for permission to appeal should be refused where there is no real prospect of successfully challenging the Tribunal’s approach.

The appellant, an Algerian national, challenged the conclusion that he could safely return to parts of Algeria where he would not face persecution or a breach of his Convention rights. The original adjudicator had not considered internal relocation. The Immigration Appeal Tribunal remitted the matter for consideration of protection and whether relocation would be unduly harsh.

On reconsideration, the adjudicator preferred an expert report to the CIPU Report but gave no reasons for resolving the apparent conflict. The Immigration Appeal Tribunal found an error of law, rejected the expert evidence, and determined that return would be safe. The appellant renewed his application for permission to appeal. The central issues were whether the adjudicator’s reasons were legally adequate and whether the Tribunal was entitled to determine the matter itself.

1. Application refused. The renewed application disclosed no real prospect of successfully challenging the Immigration Appeal Tribunal’s decision.
2. The adjudicator’s reasoning was effectively absent. Although he relied on the expert report and referred to continuing terrorist activity, he did not explain why he rejected or distinguished the CIPU Report. If his view was that there was no true conflict and that the expert evidence supplied more specific information, that could have been stated shortly. Silence on the issue was not adequate reasoning and amounted to an error of law.
3. The Immigration Appeal Tribunal was correct to allow the Secretary of State’s appeal on that basis. Once it found that the adjudicator had failed to give reasons, it was entitled either to consider the issue itself or to remit it again. It was right to reconsider the evidence for itself in the circumstances.
4. The Tribunal’s factual conclusions, which favoured the CIPU Report over the expert report and found that return would be safe, were not susceptible to a substantive challenge on the material before the court. The application was therefore refused, and the order was: Application refused.

• Original adjudicator: Found no risk of persecution or breach of Convention rights but failed to address internal relocation.
• Immigration Appeal Tribunal: Granted permission to appeal and remitted the matter to the adjudicator to consider protection and whether relocation would be unduly harsh.
• Immigration Appeal Tribunal on reconsideration: Found an error of law for lack of cogent reasoning, allowed the Secretary of State’s appeal, and determined that return would be safe.
• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Refused the renewed application for permission to appeal.