BR (Iraq) v Secretary of State for the Home Departement

A tribunal need not refer expressly to every document where its reasoning shows that the evidence was considered and the document was rejected by necessary implication. Objective material showing heightened risks to professional groups does not establish that every doctor is unsafe on return, regardless of individual circumstances. The claimant must identify features placing him in a particular risk category. Where proposed grounds have no real prospect of success, permission to appeal should be refused.

The claimant, an Iraqi national, appealed against an Asylum and Immigration Tribunal determination rejecting his asylum and human rights claims after a de novo reconsideration. The tribunal rejected his account and found that he and his supporting witness were not credible.

On renewal of his application for permission to appeal, the claimant argued that the tribunal had failed to address documentary evidence, including a military certificate and arrest warrant, and had failed to consider that his status as a medical practitioner created a general risk on return to Iraq. The central questions were whether the tribunal’s treatment of the evidence disclosed an arguable error of law and whether the objective material established a sufficient risk under the Refugee Convention and Article 3.

1. Permission to appeal refused. Neither proposed ground had a real prospect of success.
2. The tribunal had firmly rejected the claimant’s evidence and that of his supporting witness. The expert report had been considered, but its conclusions depended on accepting the claimant’s factual account. In those circumstances, the tribunal was entitled to reject the military certificate and arrest warrant by inference, without making specific reference to each document. It was not incumbent on the tribunal to refer expressly to documents which were inconsistent with its comprehensive rejection of the claimant’s account.
3. Objective material concerning the killing or heightened risk of professionals, including doctors, did not establish that no doctor could safely be returned to Iraq whatever the circumstances. The material identified possible risks associated with perceived cooperation with coalition forces, support for the former regime, or perceived wealth. There was no suggestion that the claimant fell within the first two categories, and no particular feature was identified which placed him in a special-risk category. The tribunal’s adverse credibility findings also prevented reliance on his rejected account to establish such a risk.
4. The renewed application was therefore refused. [2006] EWCA Civ 1766

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): On 21 November 2006, the renewed oral application for permission to appeal was refused because neither ground had a real prospect of success: [2006] EWCA Civ 1766.
• Single Lord Justice: Carnwath LJ refused permission on 2 October 2006.
• Asylum and Immigration Tribunal: Following a consented direction for a de novo reconsideration, the tribunal’s determination dated 5 July 2006 rejected the asylum and human rights claims. The tribunal refused leave to appeal on 2 August 2006.