Saaed v Secretary of State for the Home Department

Permission to appeal may be justified where it is arguable that an asylum tribunal failed to assess internal relocation risks in sufficient detail, including whether objective evidence of arrest or ill-treatment extended to the claimant in light of his tribe and origins. The continuing correctness of the unduly harsh test does not remove that requirement. Grounds which merely reargue the facts, without identifying a proper point of law, do not warrant permission.

This was a renewed application by a Sudanese national for permission to appeal from the Asylum & Immigration Tribunal’s decision of 31 August 2005. The Adjudicator accepted his Berti tribal identity, Darfur origin and prior detention, but concluded that he could relocate to Khartoum without facing a relevant risk or undue harshness. The AIT considered the reasoning inadequate but the error immaterial. Following Januzi v Secretary of State [2006] UKHL 5, the central issue was whether the relocation risks required more detailed consideration.

1. Permission and the relocation issue. The court was dealing with a renewed application for permission, not the merits of the asylum claim. The AIT had found the Adjudicator’s reasoning inadequate, but held that the conclusion remained open on the objective evidence. In light of Januzi v Secretary of State [2006] UKHL 5, however, it was arguable that the relocation issue required fuller consideration.
2. Application of Januzi. The House of Lords had confirmed the correctness of the unduly harsh test for internal relocation. It had nevertheless allowed the linked Sudanese appeals because the risks faced by appellants from Darfur on relocation to Khartoum required more detailed consideration. That reasoning made it arguable that the tribunal should have considered whether the risk of arrest and ill-treatment identified in the objective evidence extended to this appellant, having regard to his tribe and origins. Permission was therefore granted on that ground alone, stated most helpfully in paragraph 8 of the consolidated Skeleton Argument dated 5 May 2006.
3. Other grounds. The court was not persuaded that the remaining grounds disclosed a point of law warranting appellate attention. The extensive written arguments largely sought to reargue the facts. A good legal point justifying the Court of Appeal’s attention could normally be stated shortly. Permission was refused on all other grounds.
4. Stay. Further proceedings were stayed until the AIT had published its decisions in the related Sudanese cases remitted by the House of Lords. The parties were to consider what further steps were required and seek directions if necessary.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Maurice Kay LJ refused permission on the papers in November 2005. On renewal, Carnwath LJ granted permission on the internal relocation ground, refused the remaining grounds and stayed further proceedings.
• Asylum & Immigration Tribunal: The AIT decision of 31 August 2005 held that the Adjudicator’s reasoning was inadequate but that the error was immaterial because the conclusion was open on the objective evidence.