DP (Israel) v Secretary of State for the Home Department

Permission to appeal should be granted where an asylum determination arguably fails to provide adequate reasons for rejecting material evidence. A tribunal should explain its treatment of significant supporting evidence and should not dismiss witness evidence solely because of a relationship or friendship with the claimant, without further reasoning. An apparent factual error in a reason relied upon to reject evidence may also make the determination arguably unsound. These conclusions concern the permission stage and do not determine the truth of the asylum account or the claimant’s refugee status.

The claimant, an Israeli citizen of Armenian and Christian background, sought asylum after alleging persecution by the Israeli authorities because of his anti-war views and perceived pro-Palestinian and pro-Arab sympathies. The Secretary of State refused the claim in September 2002. The claimant had since received three adverse appellate decisions, the first two having been quashed. In March 2006, Immigration Judge Saffer issued a fresh determination, finding that the claimant’s account was fabricated and that he was not a refugee.

The claimant sought permission to appeal. The central questions were whether the judge had given adequate reasons for rejecting the claimant’s account and supporting witnesses, whether he had properly addressed photographs showing bullet holes, and whether part of his reasoning rested on a factual error.

1. Permission granted. The court granted permission to appeal and directed a half-day time estimate. It did not determine the substantive asylum appeal.
2. Adequacy of reasoning. The Immigration Judge’s reasoning on the alleged June 2002 incident was very thin. He described the account as far-fetched and referred to the absence of persuasive evidence explaining why the authorities would take extreme measures, but gave little further analysis. The court considered that the circumstances required careful evaluation, including the possibility that perceived pro-Palestinian or pro-Arab views could attract adverse interest.
3. Material evidence. The judge had accepted that photographs showed bullet holes but did not explain whether they depicted the claimant’s office, what significance they had, or why they did not support the account. That failure arguably demonstrated an inadequate assessment of material evidence.
4. Supporting witnesses. The judge rejected evidence from the claimant’s wife’s parents and a long-standing friend largely because they might have reasons to lie, and because of their relationship with the claimant. The court considered it questionable whether those were sufficiently cogent reasons, without more, for rejecting supporting evidence. In addition, the judge appeared to have made a factual error by attributing visas in the claimant’s passport to the claimant when they related to his daughter.
5. Overall assessment. The claimant’s strange account, the lengthy procedural history and the previous adverse decisions weighed against extending the proceedings. Nevertheless, the deficiencies identified disclosed an arguable case requiring permission to appeal.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): In [2006] EWCA Civ 1375, permission to appeal was granted from the fresh determination of Immigration Judge Saffer.
• Asylum & Immigration Tribunal: In March 2006, Immigration Judge Saffer made a fresh determination after hearing evidence, finding that the claimant’s account was fabricated and that he was not a refugee.
• Earlier appellate proceedings: The claimant had received three adverse decisions on the substance of his claim. The first two were quashed on appeal, leading to fresh determinations.