Karimi v Secretary of State for the Home Department

On an appeal under section 103 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, the court may intervene only for a material error of law. A credibility finding may properly rely on a substantially accurate entry interview where a later account materially differs and the explanation is rejected. Concerns about interview safeguards do not automatically establish procedural unfairness. The assessment is contextual. Compliance with the procedures then applicable, together with the claimant’s intelligence, qualifications and language proficiency, may substantially reduce the prospect of operative unfairness. An ancillary factual mistake will not invalidate the decision if it did not materially contribute to the central credibility conclusion.

The appellant, an Iranian national, appealed to the Court of Appeal from the dismissal of her asylum and related human rights appeals by an immigration judge of the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal. Her appeal had previously been allowed by the Immigration Appeal Tribunal and remitted for a rehearing. The immigration judge rejected her credibility, principally because her detailed account at Heathrow in March 2000 described the July 1999 student demonstrations, whereas her later evidence concerned a different incident in February 2000. The central issue was whether the immigration judge’s treatment of the discrepancy, and of the airport interview’s safeguards, disclosed a material error of law.

Lord Justice Maurice Kay gave the leading judgment. Lord Justice Rix and Lord Justice Brooke agreed, and the appeal was dismissed unanimously.

1. The appeal was governed by section 103 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002. The appellant therefore had to establish a material error of law by the immigration judge, as explained in R (Iran) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2005] EWCA Civ 982.
2. The immigration judge was entitled to find that the Heathrow interview was substantially accurate. It contained a detailed account of events surrounding the July 1999 student demonstrations and was not, in terms, an account of the distinct February 2000 regime-supported demonstration. The judge was entitled to reject the appellant’s explanation for the discrepancy and to treat it as deeply undermining her credibility.
3. Although the court had expressed concern about safeguards in asylum interviews, including the absence of legal representation and tape recording, fairness had to be assessed in context. The interview complied with the procedural requirements regarded as appropriate in 2000. The appellant was intelligent, well qualified and proficient in English, substantially reducing the possibility of operative unfairness. There was ultimately no error of law in finding the interview fair. The court referred to The Queen on the Application of Dirshe v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2005] EWCA Civ 421.
4. The immigration judge had made factual mistakes concerning the alleged hospital treatment and the period before the appellant’s departure. Those errors did not materially affect the decision because the airport interview supplied a fundamental and freestanding reason for the adverse credibility finding.

Lord Justice Brooke added that later research had identified serious deficiencies in port-of-entry interviews and had informed subsequent reforms, but emphasised that the public-law context was decisive on the facts of this case. The appeal was dismissed.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): On 30 January 2006, the appeal was dismissed. Citation: [2006] EWCA Civ 263.
2. Asylum and Immigration Tribunal: On 22 April 2005, following a de novo rehearing after remittal, the immigration judge dismissed the asylum and human rights appeals.
3. Immigration Appeal Tribunal: On 14 February 2005, the appellant’s appeal was allowed and the matter was remitted for rehearing.
4. Adjudicator: On 17 December 2003, the appellant’s appeal against refusal of asylum was dismissed.