Y v Secretary of State for the Home Department

An asylum decision-maker must approach inherent implausibility with caution. Credibility must be assessed in the context of reliable information about the conditions, customs and society of the claimant’s country of origin, rather than solely through domestic assumptions.

The decision-maker may nevertheless use common sense, rationality and experience. An account may be rejected where, after proper contextual assessment and consideration in the round, it is so far-fetched or contrary to reason that it is incapable of belief. Reasons must be given for that conclusion.

An appellate court need not determine an additional statutory issue where the tribunal’s decision rests on an independent and lawful credibility finding.

The appellant, an Iranian citizen, claimed asylum and protection under articles 2 and 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights. He alleged that he had been detained and tortured after being falsely accused of stealing a rifle from a military vehicle. An adjudicator rejected his account as incredible and dismissed his asylum and human rights claims.

The Immigration Appeal Tribunal dismissed his appeal. It upheld the adjudicator’s credibility findings before separately treating the appellant’s use of false documents in the United Kingdom as damaging to credibility under section 8 of the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, Etc) Act 2004.

The central questions were whether the adjudicator had unlawfully relied on inherent implausibility without adequately considering conditions in Iran, and whether any issue concerning section 8 affected the result.

1. Appeal dismissed. Keene LJ delivered the leading judgment. Carnwath and Ward LJJ agreed that the adjudicator’s credibility determination disclosed no error of law and that the section 8 issues consequently did not arise.

2. An asylum decision-maker must be cautious before finding an account inherently incredible. Domestic assumptions about what is reasonable may be unreliable when events occurred in a society whose customs and conditions lie outside the tribunal’s experience. The account must therefore be considered through the information available about the country of origin. The guidance in HK v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2006] EWCA Civ 1037 was applied in that sense.

3. That caution does not require a tribunal to accept uncontradicted evidence at face value or suspend its judgment. Applying Awala [2005] CSOH 73, a fact-finder may draw reasonable conclusions from implausibility, common sense, rationality and the probabilities affecting the case as a whole. It may reject an account that, after proper contextual assessment, is so far-fetched and contrary to reason as to be incapable of belief. The tribunal must explain its conclusion rather than merely label the account implausible.

4. The adjudicator had expressly recognised the need to place the claim within its Iranian context and had considered the relevant country information. He gave several reasons and assessed their cumulative effect. Although some reasons were less compelling than others, he was entitled to regard the alleged intervention by a senior intelligence officer, the provision of that officer’s home as security, and the grant of bail on an exceptionally serious anti-state allegation as incredible.

5. It would have been preferable to assess the documentary evidence before forming a view of the oral account. That sequencing caused no material error because the adjudicator accurately identified the documents’ limitations, was entitled to give them little weight, and would have reached the same overall credibility finding.

6. The IAT had upheld the credibility determination before considering section 8 of the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, Etc) Act 2004. Its section 8 reasoning was therefore additional and immaterial to the disposition. The meaning of section 8 and its compatibility with articles 3 and 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights were left for determination in an appropriate case. Carnwath LJ additionally recorded, without deciding the issue, the Secretary of State’s submission that section 8 does not alter the normal standard of proof and that the weight of the listed credibility factors depends on their context.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): The appeal was dismissed by [2006] EWCA Civ 1223. The court upheld the conclusion that the adjudicator’s credibility assessment disclosed no error of law.

2. Immigration Appeal Tribunal: By a decision notified on 4 February 2005, the IAT dismissed the appeal. It upheld the adjudicator’s credibility findings and subsequently considered section 8 of the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, Etc) Act 2004.

3. Adjudicator: By a decision promulgated on 5 May 2004, the adjudicator rejected the appellant’s account and dismissed his asylum and human rights claims.