T v Secretary of State for the Home Department

On an appeal from an asylum tribunal, the Court of Appeal considers whether there is a material error of law, not whether another view of the facts was possible. A credibility assessment will stand where the tribunal gives rational and cogent reasons, considers the evidence as a whole, and makes proper allowances for a claimant’s age. An issue omitted from the tribunal’s determination does not ordinarily amount to an error of law where it was not advanced below. The concurring judgment also emphasised that appeal bundles should contain only necessary material.

T, an Eritrean national and minor, claimed asylum on the basis that he feared persecution because he was a Pentecostal Christian. The Secretary of State rejected the claim but granted discretionary leave until his eighteenth birthday. An adjudicator rejected T’s account as lacking credibility, and the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal dismissed his appeal on the ground that no material error of law had been shown.

Before the Court of Appeal, T challenged the rationality of the credibility findings, the treatment of his age and the failure to consider a prospective risk arising from his attendance at a Pentecostal church in the United Kingdom. The central issue was whether those complaints disclosed an error of law rather than disagreement with factual findings.

1. Appeal dismissed. Lord Justice Dyson gave the leading judgment, with Lady Justice Hallett and Lord Justice Brooke agreeing.
2. The complaints about the adjudicator’s assessment of T’s credibility were essentially factual. The adjudicator had explained rationally and cogently why he rejected the evidence concerning T’s faith and his parents’ faith. The reasoning was therefore not irrational and disclosed no error of law.
3. The adjudicator had properly taken T’s age and status as an unaccompanied minor into account. He had followed Guidance Number 8 on Unaccompanied Children, adapted the hearing procedure to T’s age, and made express allowances when assessing potentially damaging matters. The fact that every aspect of the evidence was not expressly mentioned did not establish that it had been ignored, particularly where the adjudicator considered the evidence as a whole and the objective background material.
4. The adjudicator was not required to consider whether T’s attendance at a Pentecostal church in the United Kingdom created a prospective risk on return because that alternative case had not been advanced below. It was not open to T to complain on appeal that the adjudicator had failed to address it.
5. Lord Justice Brooke added concurring procedural guidance. After permission to appeal, the parties remained under a duty to agree any further documents necessary for the appeal. The appeal bundle should be confined to relevant material, avoiding unnecessary copying of voluminous country evidence.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division) — In [2006] EWCA Civ 483, the appeal from the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal was unanimously dismissed.
2. Asylum and Immigration Tribunal — The appeal against the adjudicator’s determination was dismissed; the Tribunal found no material error of law.
3. Adjudicator — T’s appeal against the refusal of his asylum claim was dismissed following rejection of his credibility.