AA (Iran) v Secretary of State for the Home Department

Imprecise wording about whether an asylum account is reasonably likely or reasonably possible does not, by itself, invert the burden of proof where the decision, read as a whole, shows a proper credibility assessment.

An immigration judge may assess documentary evidence in the round and give different weight to different documents. A minor discrepancy, or an additional point not put to the claimant, will not justify appellate intervention where it could not have affected the overall decision.

AA, an Iranian citizen, claimed asylum after alleging political activity for the Workers’ Communist Party of Iran, detention, police summonses and searches of his family’s homes. He also appealed on human rights grounds.

An immigration judge reconsidered his appeal on 23 September 2005 and dismissed both claims, rejecting his account as lacking credibility and placing little or no weight on several documents. The appeal to the Court of Appeal concerned the alleged inversion of the burden of proof, reliance on points not put to AA, and inconsistent treatment of documentary evidence.

Lord Justice Brooke gave the principal judgment. Lady Justice Smith and Lord Justice Jacob agreed.

1. Burden of proof. Although the immigration judge’s wording could have been more careful, her reasoning did not show that she had inverted the burden of proof. She gave numerous reasons for rejecting AA’s account as not credible. Having rejected that account, she was not willing to treat the alleged events as at all likely to be true.
2. Points not put to the claimant. The discrepancy concerning which family member provided shop deeds as bail security was, at most, an additional point. Even if it had not been relied upon, it could not have affected the overall assessment. The similar point concerning a later letter from the WCPI was trivial, particularly because the immigration judge had already given ample reasons for rejecting AA’s evidence.
3. Documents. The immigration judge was entitled to assess the documentary evidence in the round. Her acceptance of the death certificate and employment tribunal document did not prevent her from treating the company letter and police summonses with suspicion. The inconsistencies in AA’s account, together with objective evidence that apparently genuine Iranian legal and bureaucratic documents were readily obtainable, justified the different treatment.
4. The alleged errors disclosed no material error of law. The asylum appeal was dismissed, and the human rights appeal, which stood or fell with it, was also dismissed. Order: Appeal dismissed.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): In [2006] EWCA Civ 1027, the appeal was dismissed.
• Asylum & Immigration Tribunal: On reconsideration on 23 September 2005, the immigration judge dismissed the asylum and human rights appeals. An earlier adjudicator’s decision had been set aside by the Immigration Appeal Tribunal, which ordered a complete rehearing.