Sharif Ali v Secretary of State for the Home Department

An appellate tribunal should not convert disagreement with an adjudicator’s factual assessment into an error of law. This includes disagreement about the weight given to objective evidence when assessing an asylum claimant’s identity or membership of a protected group. The court will intervene only where an actual error of law is established. The same approach applies to an Article 3 claim based on alleged special circumstances, including age, where the adjudicator has considered and rejected the submission. Persistent attempts to reframe factual challenges as legal errors do not create jurisdiction to interfere.

The applicant, a Somali national, claimed asylum after entering the United Kingdom. The Secretary of State rejected his account that he was a member of the Ashraf minority clan and considered that his removal would not breach the Refugee Convention or the Human Rights Convention.

An adjudicator rejected the applicant’s account, relying on inconsistencies in his knowledge of Ashraf clan structure. She also rejected his separate Article 3 claim based on alleged special circumstances, including his age. The Asylum and Immigration Tribunal refused permission to appeal, and Laws LJ refused permission on paper. The central issue was whether the alleged factual and Article 3 errors amounted to errors of law.

1. Application refused. The adjudicator’s conclusion that the applicant had failed to establish that he was an Ashraf or member of another minority group was a finding of fact which she was entitled to make.
2. Disagreement with the assessment of evidence, including an argument that insufficient account was taken of wider objective evidence, does not of itself amount to an error of law. The Court of Appeal will not permit factual challenges to be elevated into legal challenges without an identifiable legal error.
3. The adjudicator was also entitled to reject the submission that removal would breach Article 3 because of the applicant’s special circumstances, including his age. The court found no error of law in her treatment of that issue.
4. The earlier refusal of permission by the Tribunal, and Laws LJ’s refusal of permission on paper, were consistent with that conclusion. The application for permission to appeal was therefore refused. An order for public funding was made.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): refused the application for permission to appeal and made an order for public funding.
• Asylum and Immigration Tribunal: refused permission to appeal from the adjudicator’s determination.
• Adjudicator: rejected the applicant’s asylum claim, finding that he had not established that he was a member of the Ashraf clan or another minority group, and rejected his Article 3 claim.
• Laws LJ: refused permission to appeal on paper.