Solonina v Secretary of State for the Home Department

An appellate tribunal exercising a jurisdiction confined to errors of law may resolve an appeal on the material available after identifying a material error, provided it does not improperly retry factual issues.

Credibility is not an indivisible concept. Whether a discrete issue can be separated from flawed credibility findings depends on the facts and the relationship between the issues. Internal relocation may remain viable despite documentary or registration difficulties where those difficulties can be overcome in practice and do not make relocation unduly harsh.

The appellant, a Ukrainian Orthodox Christian, claimed asylum after alleged attacks by Greek Catholics and alleged failure by the police to protect him. An adjudicator rejected the core account, found no persecution, and concluded that internal relocation within Ukraine would not be unduly harsh. The case was remitted and reheard before another adjudicator.

On appeal, the Immigration Appeal Tribunal accepted that the adjudicator had not adequately addressed corroborative material concerning the core claim. It nevertheless treated the passport issue and internal relocation as distinct and potentially determinative, considering the core claim at its highest. The appellant challenged that approach and alleged that the Tribunal had failed to address evidence of official collusion.

1. Appeal dismissed. Lord Justice Carnwath gave the judgment. Lord Justices Longmore and Chadwick agreed.
2. The relevant appellate jurisdiction was confined to errors of law. Once a material error of law had been identified, the Tribunal could decide what relief to grant on the material available at the time and could, where appropriate, resolve the appeal without remitting it. The Tribunal had approached the limits of that jurisdiction by examining the factual material broadly, but had not exceeded them. This was consistent with CA v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2004] EWCA Civ 1165 and the approach stated there at paragraph 15.
3. Credibility was not necessarily indivisible. Erdogan v Secretary of State [2004] EWCA Civ 1472 demonstrated that caution was required before compartmentalising an account, but the issue remained fact-sensitive. The Tribunal was entitled to uphold the adjudicator’s separate finding on the passports because that finding was not dependent on the reasoning undermined in relation to the core claim, and the corroborative evidence did not affect it.
4. The Tribunal was also entitled to conclude, in the alternative, that relocation was achievable even if the appellant’s account of withheld passports were accepted. The evidence indicated that documents could be recovered or replaced and that registration requirements could be met. The possible need for a small bribe did not make relocation unduly harsh where the appellant had the resources and employment prospects to meet the cost.
5. The allegation of police collusion rested on very thin evidence, had not been advanced before the Tribunal, and could not have affected the result. The Tribunal therefore was not required to address it expressly.

Order: appeal dismissed.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): dismissed the appeal on 14 April 2005.
• Immigration Appeal Tribunal: on 1 September 2004, upheld the conclusion that the passport issue and internal relocation were distinct matters, found no error of law in the adjudicator’s approach, and refused permission to appeal.
• Adjudicator: after remittal and rehearing in January 2004, dismissed the asylum and human rights appeal, rejecting the core account and finding a viable internal relocation alternative.