Naeem v Secretary of State for the Home Department

A disagreement with an adjudicator’s factual findings does not, without more, establish an error of law capable of founding an appeal. Where the lower tribunals have made and reviewed findings of fact, and the proposed appeal has no real prospect of success, permission should be refused.

The claimant, an Ahmadi from Pakistan, claimed asylum after alleging harassment and violence connected with his religious activities. An adjudicator dismissed his appeal on the facts. Following an earlier remittal to clarify whether he had proselytised, the Immigration Appeal Tribunal concluded that the adjudicator had made no error of law. The claimant sought to appeal to the Court of Appeal, challenging the factual conclusions. The central issue was whether that disagreement disclosed an arguable error of law with a real prospect of success.

1. The application was refused. The claimant’s challenge amounted in substance to disagreement with the adjudicator’s findings of fact.
2. The adjudicator had accepted the underlying account only to a limited extent, found that the claimant’s religious activities were restricted, rejected his assertion that an incident in Pakistan was an attempt to kill or seriously harm him, and found that he had not been persecuted after moving to Rawalpindi.
3. The Immigration Appeal Tribunal had considered whether the adjudicator erred in law and concluded that he had not. The Court of Appeal found no basis for concluding that an appeal to it would have a real prospect of success.
4. A challenge of this kind, which seeks to reargue factual findings without identifying an error of law, cannot found an appeal.

Order: Application refused.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): The application for permission to appeal was refused under [2005] EWCA Civ 1652.
• Immigration Appeal Tribunal: After remitting the case to the adjudicator to clarify the factual issue of proselytising, the Tribunal concluded that the adjudicator had not erred in law.
• Adjudicator: The claimant’s asylum appeal was dismissed on 11 June 2003.