Tchunuangang, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department

In assessing whether further representations amount to a fresh asylum claim, the Secretary of State must consider whether the material is sufficiently different from the earlier claim that an adjudicator might reasonably reach a favourable view despite the earlier refusal. A decision applying that test is lawful where the new material was previously available, concerns matters already considered, or does not alter the established risk assessment. The court will not permit judicial review to become a further merits appeal. Evidence concerning general prison conditions will not assist where the claimant is not shown to face a real risk of arrest or adverse official interest.

The claimant, a Cameroonian national, made a second asylum claim after an earlier claim and appeal had failed. Further representations relied on alleged membership of political organisations, demonstrations outside the Cameroon Embassy, photographs, a petition and a report on prison conditions. The Secretary of State repeatedly maintained that the material did not constitute a fresh claim. The claimant sought judicial review of that conclusion. The central issue was whether the Secretary of State had applied the correct legal test and reached a decision open to him on the evidence.

1. Permission refused. Although the claimant did not attend the hearing, the court considered the substance of the renewed application.
2. The Secretary of State applied the correct test: whether the further representations were sufficiently different from the earlier claim that an adjudicator might reasonably take a favourable view of them despite the rejection of the earlier claim.
3. The material was properly assessed in three groups. The petition and material concerning alleged SDF UK membership pre-dated the earlier adjudicator’s hearing and could have been produced then. The CDC membership and demonstration evidence concerned matters already addressed by the adjudicator, and further evidence could likewise have been given at that hearing.
4. The report on prison conditions did not materially assist. The adjudicator had found that the claimant would not attract the attention of the Cameroonian authorities, and the report concerned persons who had previously been arrested. It therefore did not establish a relevant risk to this claimant.
5. The Secretary of State’s reasons reflected the detailed reasoning in the decision letters. They were valid, and the conclusion that the representations did not amount to a fresh claim was plainly reasonable. There was no proper basis for judicial review.

• Immigration Appeal Tribunal: Permission to appeal from the adjudicator’s dismissal of the claimant’s asylum appeal was refused on 1 March 2004.
• High Court (Administrative Court): The renewed application for permission to apply for judicial review was refused.