HH (Iraq) v Secretary of State for the Home Department

In an asylum appeal, a tribunal need not reject a claimant’s account merely because it lacks corroboration. It may assess vagueness, speculation, lack of personal knowledge and absence of supporting detail when evaluating weight and credibility. Failure to claim asylum promptly after arrival may properly damage credibility. Failure to claim at a British embassy abroad must be assessed against the relevant practice and procedural position. Reliance on failure to seek protection in another country requires careful examination of that country’s status and circumstances. An error is immaterial where the tribunal would inevitably have reached the same conclusion. Internal relocation is reasonable where the claimant could lead a relatively normal life without undue hardship in the context of the country concerned.

The appellant, an Iraqi national, claimed asylum in the United Kingdom after making unsuccessful applications under the Highly Skilled Migrant Programme and as a student. He alleged that his status as a Shia Muslim and his perceived association with Americans exposed him to persecution if returned to Iraq.

An initial asylum appeal was dismissed, but the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal ordered reconsideration by way of a fresh hearing. Immigration Judge Dr K F Walters dismissed the renewed appeal, relying on adverse credibility findings, the appellant’s delay in claiming asylum and the availability of internal relocation, including to Najaf. The appeal concerned the tribunal’s treatment of uncorroborated evidence, country material, credibility findings, the failure to claim protection in Syria and the internal-relocation assessment.

Appeal dismissed. Lord Justice Richards gave the judgment, with Lord Justices Wall and Ward agreeing.

1. The tribunal did not impose a requirement of corroboration. It was entitled to take account of the vague and speculative nature of parts of the account, the appellant’s lack of personal knowledge and the absence of supporting detail when assessing weight and credibility. The assessment was a permissible evaluation of the evidence.
2. The tribunal had considered the general country information and was entitled to focus on the appellant’s particular circumstances. Its conclusion that his limited contact with American engineers would not cause him to be perceived as pro-American or place him at risk was reasonably open to it and was not irrational.
3. Although the tribunal’s treatment of the factual account lacked some clarity, its essential finding was sufficiently clear: it rejected, on credibility grounds, the claim that the appellant had a subjective fear of persecution. That finding was central to the asylum claim. The tribunal was not required to address every item of evidence, particularly peripheral material incapable of affecting the decision.
4. The tribunal erred in treating the appellant’s failure to claim asylum at the British Embassy in Syria as damaging to credibility without taking account of the relevant practice and procedural position. If the point had concerned protection from the Syrian authorities, any adverse inference would have required careful examination. Syria was not a safe country for the purposes of the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants etc) Act 2004, and evidence of temporary protection had to be considered.
5. The error was immaterial. The tribunal had been entitled to place real weight on the appellant’s failure to claim asylum promptly after arriving in the United Kingdom, and the Court was satisfied that the same conclusion would have been reached without the Syrian embassy point.
6. For internal relocation to be a reasonable alternative, conditions in the proposed area must make it possible, in the context of the country concerned, to lead a relatively normal life without undue hardship. That test was consistent with the UNHCR guidelines cited with approval by Lord Bingham in Januzi v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2006] UKHL 5.
7. The tribunal applied the correct test and was entitled to attach weight to the appellant’s previous stays in Najaf, his use of it as a stopover and his absence of harm there. Its internal-relocation finding was lawful and independently sufficient to reject the asylum claim.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Dismissed the appeal and upheld both the primary credibility reasoning and the alternative internal-relocation finding.
• Asylum and Immigration Tribunal: After an initial asylum appeal was dismissed, the Tribunal ordered reconsideration by way of a fresh hearing. Immigration Judge Dr K F Walters dismissed the renewed appeal in a decision promulgated on 24 February 2006: AIT No. AA/06612/2005.