Bouchenaki v Secretary of State for the Home Department

In deciding whether an immigration tribunal has made an error of law by failing to address medical evidence, the tribunal’s reasons must be read as a whole. An express reference to every aspect of the evidence is unnecessary if the reasoning shows that the material issue was understood and evaluated. In a proportionality assessment involving family life, the tribunal may consider the anticipated effects of removal on relatives and the applicant, including whether departure will be organised, what support is available, and whether medical facilities exist. Failure to use terms such as self-harm or suicide does not itself establish non-engagement with the risk. The question is whether the tribunal materially failed to address it.

The applicant, an Algerian citizen, challenged removal after the Secretary of State refused refugee status and concluded that removal would not breach his Convention rights. An adjudicator dismissed his appeal on 4 July 2003. The Immigration Appeal Tribunal dismissed his further appeal and refused permission to appeal in a decision notified on 13 February 2004.

The applicant renewed his application to the Court of Appeal. He argued that the Tribunal had failed to assess proportionality in relation to his family life, medical evidence concerning his sister, the risk of self-harm or suicide, the effect on close relatives, and its fact-finding role. The central issue was whether those matters disclosed an arguable error of law rather than a challenge merely to the weight of the evidence.

Application refused. Lord Justice Pill held that the renewed application did not disclose an arguable error of law in the Immigration Appeal Tribunal’s proportionality assessment.

1. The relevant distinction was between a failure to engage with a material issue and a challenge to the weight given to evidence. The court considered the approach identified in Huang v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2005] EWCA Civ 105. The applicant’s complaint had to show more than disagreement with the Tribunal’s evaluation.
2. The Tribunal had not expressly used the terms self-harm or suicide when summarising the evidence. That omission was not decisive. Its reasons, read as a whole, referred to the sister’s distress and problems, accepted that removal might cause a dangerous period, and considered the consequences in context.
3. The Tribunal also considered that the applicant’s departure would be organised rather than sudden, that he could continue to support his sister from abroad, that other relatives were in the United Kingdom, and that medical mechanisms existed there to protect people with suicidal ideas. Those findings demonstrated that the material risk had been considered. Reliance on R (AC) v Immigration Appeal Tribunal [2003] EWHC 389 (Admin) did not establish a failure to address the issue.
4. It might have been preferable for the Tribunal to summarise the medical evidence more fully, but no material issue had been ignored. The court declined to comment on an up-to-date psychotherapist’s report which had been placed before it but was not relied upon in argument. The application for permission to appeal was refused.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): On 20 October 2005, the court refused the renewed application for permission to appeal: [2005] EWCA Civ 1333.
2. Immigration Appeal Tribunal: Dismissed the appeal from the adjudicator and refused permission to appeal; its decision was notified on 13 February 2004.
3. Adjudicator: On 4 July 2003, dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the refusal of refugee status and the decision that removal would not breach his Convention rights.