Dede v Secretary of State for the Home Department

In an asylum appeal, an appellate tribunal must address a potentially significant ground of appeal clearly raised before it, unless there is clear evidence that the ground was abandoned. If abandonment is uncertain, the tribunal should record that in its decision rather than assume it.

An adjudicator assessing risk on return must consider material evidence about an appellant’s connection with a political organisation, including the organisation’s status and the authorities’ interest in it. Failure to recognise that the organisation had been banned may be a material error where the evidence indicates that the ban increased the risk to its members or supporters.

The appellant, a Turkish national and Alevi, claimed asylum and human-rights protection after alleging detention and mistreatment connected with his support for HADEP. The adjudicator accepted much of his account but dismissed the appeal, finding that the past detention did not amount to persecution and that he was not at real risk on return. The Immigration Appeal Tribunal dismissed his further appeal, concentrating on whether he would be detained at the airport.

Permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal was granted on the arguable issue that the adjudicator had wrongly treated HADEP as a legitimate party and had failed to consider the relevant factors identified in A (Turkey) [2003] UKIAT 00034. The central issue was whether that mistake was material and whether the IAT had failed to address a ground of appeal properly raised before it.

1. Appeal allowed. The matter was remitted to a fresh tribunal to reconsider the appeal in light of the judgment.
2. The IAT had before it a ground challenging the adjudicator’s treatment of HADEP. The ground was identified in the reasons for permission to appeal. There was no sufficient evidence that it had been abandoned at the hearing. If the IAT considered that the ground had been abandoned, it should have recorded that clearly. It was unsafe for the court to assume abandonment.
3. The adjudicator had erred in describing HADEP as a legitimate or legal party. HADEP had been banned shortly before the adjudicator’s decision. The country guidance in A (Turkey) [2003] UKIAT 00034 identified the appellant’s level of known or suspected involvement with a separatist organisation, family connections with organisations including HADEP, and evidence of continuing official interest as relevant factors. The list was not exhaustive and did not require mechanical reference to every factor.
4. The status of HADEP was potentially material. A (Turkey) explained that its outlawing, because of its perceived connection with Kurdish rebels, might increase the risk that HADEP members or supporters would be associated with the PKK. The adjudicator’s description of HADEP as legitimate indicated that this issue had not been properly assessed. The appellant’s account that his home had been raided after his departure was also relevant to continuing official interest.
5. Lord Justice Carnwath expressed doubts about the independent significance of whether HADEP was banned, but accepted that the earlier decision showed that the ban was a potentially material issue. Lord Justice Latham agreed that the adjudicator had failed to deal with a relevant issue and that remittal was required.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): [2006] EWCA Civ 576 — appeal allowed and matter remitted to a fresh tribunal.
• Immigration Appeal Tribunal: appeal dismissed. The tribunal found no reasonable likelihood that the appellant would be at risk of persecution on return, but did not expressly address the ground concerning the adjudicator’s treatment of HADEP.
• Adjudicator: appeal against refusal of asylum and human-rights protection dismissed.