Karbaschien v Secretary of State for the Home Department

Where an asylum claimant relies on evidence that is arguably important to the claim, the decision-maker’s reasons should explain what was made of that evidence. Failure to do so may constitute an arguable reasons challenge and justify permission for a full appeal. A subsidiary ground may also be allowed to proceed at the permission stage where the court considers it less persuasive but does not shut it out.

The appellant, an Iranian national and former major in the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, appealed against the refusal of his asylum claim. The adjudicator rejected his account of feared persecution, and the Asylum Immigration Tribunal dismissed his appeal on reconsideration on 10 May 2006.

The appellant argued that the adjudicator had failed to explain his treatment of a letter from an Iranian dissident, Mr Nourizadeh, and an expert report. He also argued that the facts accepted by the adjudicator established a well-founded fear of persecution. The renewed application concerned whether these grounds were sufficiently arguable to warrant permission to appeal.

1. Permission granted. The renewed application for permission to appeal was allowed. The court did not determine the merits of the asylum claim.
2. The adjudicator accepted that the appellant had contacted the British and Canadian authorities in Turkey and had served in the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, but rejected his account of persecution. He found that the appellant had concocted parts of his account concerning an Iranian intelligence agent and that seeing Mr Nourizadeh alone would not expose him to arrest or interrogation on return.
3. The treatment of the evidence concerning Mr Nourizadeh raised an arguable reasons challenge. The adjudicator described it as incredible that the appellant had arranged a meeting with Mr Nourizadeh and told him of the threat to his life, yet the letter before him appeared to confirm that this had occurred. The reasoning was arguably inconsistent in its treatment of that evidence and did not explain what weight had been given to the letter.
4. The expert report also arguably required express treatment. It appeared capable of supporting the nature and potential utility of intelligence information supplied by the appellant, together with other matters favourable to his case. The adjudicator’s decision did not show what he made of the report.
5. Although the Tribunal had regarded these criticisms as weak, the material was arguably important in this unusual case. The appellant was therefore entitled to argue on a full appeal that the adjudicator should have explained his treatment of it. The subsidiary ground based on the accepted facts was less persuasive, but was not shut out at the permission stage.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): On 21 September 2006, Laws LJ granted the renewed application for permission to appeal.
2. Immigration Appeal Tribunal: Permission to appeal was refused on 1 June 2006. On reconsideration, the Tribunal had dismissed the appellant’s appeal on 10 May 2006.
3. Adjudicator: On 3 February 2004, the adjudicator dismissed the appeal against the Secretary of State’s refusal of the asylum claim.
4. Secretary of State for the Home Department: The asylum application was refused on 15 August 2003.