C v Secretary of State for the Home Department

In an immigration appeal involving Articles 3 and 8, a claimant relying on a diagnosed psychiatric condition must establish a very high threshold before removal can be resisted. Relative disadvantage in medical treatment or welfare between the United Kingdom and the receiving state is insufficient. The same high standard applies where removal is said to worsen a condition diagnosed in the United Kingdom. An expert may provide psychiatric evidence consistent with the claimant’s factual account, but credibility remains for the tribunal. The Court of Appeal will not interfere where the tribunal has considered the evidence, given adequate reasons, and made evaluative findings open to it. Minor factual errors do not amount to errors of law where they do not affect the central findings.

The appellant, a Kurdish Alevi woman from Turkey, claimed asylum and protection under the Human Rights Convention. She alleged repeated ill-treatment and rape by Turkish authorities and relied on psychiatric evidence diagnosing post-traumatic stress disorder and depression, with an increased risk of suicide on return.

An adjudicator rejected her claim in 2004. Following the establishment of the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal, an immigration judge reconsidered the matter, heard the evidence afresh, rejected the factual account, but accepted the psychiatric diagnoses. The appellant appealed on grounds including an alleged presenting-officer concession, treatment of her husband’s absence and expert evidence, factual mistakes, and the assessment of Articles 3 and 8. The central issue was whether the immigration judge had made an error of law.

1. Appeal dismissed. The immigration judge had comprehensively and cogently rejected the appellant’s factual account. The Court of Appeal found no proper basis for interfering with those findings.
2. The evidence did not establish that the presenting officer had conceded that the appellant had been raped or had been pressured to withdraw such a concession. The judge’s manuscript notes supported the presenting officer’s account that the principal submission remained that the claim was fabricated. The ground therefore failed on its factual basis.
3. The immigration judge was entitled to regard the explanation for the appellant’s husband’s absence as unreasonable. The alleged earlier undertaking not to cross-examine about the rapes was not shown and was not relied on before the immigration judge.
4. The alleged factual errors concerning what the appellant told her parents and why she did not move were minor. The determination showed that the evidence had been considered, and the reasons for rejecting it were sufficient. They did not disclose an error of law.
5. The psychiatric expert’s role was limited. His diagnosis and opinion that the appellant’s condition was consistent with her account were relevant, but assessment of the truth of that account was the tribunal’s function. The immigration judge had taken the reports into account, accepted the psychiatric diagnoses, and was entitled to reject the factual account.
6. The Article 3 and 8 conclusions disclosed no error of law. The appellant had not shown the exceptional circumstances or very high threshold required to resist removal on the basis of psychiatric deterioration, medical treatment, welfare, family disruption or separation. Relative disadvantage in treatment or welfare was insufficient; something much more extreme was required.
7. Lord Justice Latham and Lord Justice Longmore agreed. Order: appeal dismissed.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Appeal from the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal dismissed on 9 February 2006.
• Asylum and Immigration Tribunal: On reconsideration, after hearing the evidence afresh, the immigration judge rejected the asylum and human-rights claims.
• Earlier adjudicator: Decision promulgated on 28 December 2004 and adverse to the appellant; permission to appeal was granted, after which the matter became transitional proceedings under the legislation establishing the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal.