Dede v Secretary of State for the Home Department

Permission to appeal should be granted where the proposed grounds disclose a real, rather than fanciful, prospect of success. In an asylum appeal, the tribunal must identify any material error in the fact-finder’s assessment and reassess the risk on return in light of the correct factual and legal position. That assessment may require consideration of relevant country-guidance risk factors, the claimant’s political involvement, the circumstances of arrival, and any internal flight alternative.

The appellant, a Turkish citizen and Alevi, claimed asylum on the basis of persecution arising from his religion and political opinion, including support for HADEP and two periods of detention. The adjudicator accepted much of his account but dismissed the asylum and human-rights appeals, finding that the detention did not reach the persecution threshold and that he faced no material difficulty on return.

The appellant challenged the adjudicator’s description of HADEP as a legitimate party and alleged that relevant risk factors in the country-guidance case of A had not been considered. The Immigration Appeal Tribunal had not specifically addressed that ground. The issue before the Court of Appeal was whether there was a real prospect that the Tribunal had failed to identify and correct a material error of law.

1. Permission. The court granted permission to appeal because the proposed appeal had a real, as opposed to fanciful, prospect of success. The grant did not indicate that the appeal would ultimately succeed, since the respondent might have cogent answers to the proposed grounds (para 9).
2. Material error concerning HADEP. It was arguable that the adjudicator had materially misassessed the status of HADEP by treating it as a legitimate party when the country-guidance material indicated that it had recently been outlawed. That issue required consideration in the assessment of risk on return (paras 5–8).
3. Failure to undertake a complete assessment. The Tribunal arguably should have identified the adjudicator’s error of law and reassessed the case on the true factual basis. That reassessment required consideration of the relevant risk factors identified in A, the extent of the appellant’s involvement with HADEP, and evidence that the authorities were looking for him (paras 6–8).
4. Return and internal relocation. The Tribunal’s assessment of the appellant’s circumstances on arrival at Istanbul airport did not necessarily resolve the wider risk issue. The internal flight alternative also required reconsideration in light of the correct position concerning HADEP and the risk on return (para 8).
5. The appeal was directed to a three-judge Tribunal, one member of which could be a High Court judge. Costs were to be assessed (para 9).

• Immigration Appeal Tribunal: dismissed the appeal from the adjudicator’s refusal of the asylum and human-rights claims. It did not specifically address the ground concerning the adjudicator’s treatment of HADEP.
• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): granted permission to appeal, directing that the appeal be heard by a three-judge Tribunal.