NS v Secretary of State for the Home Department

In an asylum appeal, an immigration judge need not recite or separately list every relevant risk factor, provided the determination shows that the factors were considered and the findings support the conclusion. The judge is not required to add a separate holistic or cumulative assessment where the individual findings clearly establish that the claimant is unlikely to interest the authorities. Assessment of risk on return should ordinarily begin with the claimant’s position in the home area. If no real risk arises there, the claim will usually fail unless other factors, including activities abroad or elsewhere in the country, create or aggravate the risk.

The appellant, a Turkish Kurd, challenged the dismissal of her asylum and human-rights appeal. The immigration judge had found that her political involvement was minor, her three short detentions were isolated, and she was unlikely to interest the Turkish authorities or appear on the GBT system on return.

Permission to appeal was granted on the question whether the judge had failed to address expressly the factors identified in the country-guidance decision in IK (Returnees-Records-IFA) Turkey CG. The central issue was whether the findings disclosed an error of law because the judge had not separately listed those factors or made an express finding about risk in the appellant’s locality.

1. Appeal dismissed. The immigration judge had made the necessary findings and reached a conclusion open to him on the evidence.
2. The guidance in A (Turkey) identified an inexhaustive list of matters potentially relevant to suspicion by the Turkish authorities. The judge had addressed each matter, although the findings appeared in different parts of the determination and were not arranged as a checklist.
3. The judge was entitled to conclude that the appellant was unlikely to interest the authorities. That conclusion was supported by findings that she was not a political activist, had no convictions or outstanding warrants, and had experienced only short, separate and isolated detentions.
4. The absence of a further express statement that there was no risk in the appellant’s locality did not establish an error of law. The judge’s findings, read as a whole, showed that he had considered the relevant matters and had properly assessed the likely attitude of the authorities in her home area.
5. It was unnecessary for the judge to combine every individual factor into a separate cumulative assessment. The determination disclosed no error of law, and the appeal was refused.

• Asylum and Immigration Tribunal: On reconsideration dated 29 June 2005, dismissed the appellant’s challenge to the Secretary of State’s refusal of her asylum claim and dismissed her human-rights grounds under Articles 2, 3 and 8 of the ECHR.
• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Dismissed the appeal and upheld the immigration judge’s determination. [2006] EWCA Civ 802