Ali & Anor v Secretary of State for the Home Department

A tribunal that accepts serious past persecution must give legally sufficient reasons if it declines to treat that history as probative of future risk. Where it relies on a significant change in circumstances to conclude that risk has ceased, it must explain that conclusion. The circumstances of proposed return, including an arguable Article 3 issue, may also require consideration. The Court of Appeal extended time and granted permission to appeal, without determining the merits of the protection claim.

The applicants were Somali nationals and members of the Tunni Torre clan. The Asylum and Immigration Tribunal accepted the first applicant’s account of serious past ill-treatment, including persecution connected with her clan membership, but dismissed the appeal against refusal of further leave to remain. A renewed application for permission to appeal challenged the adequacy of the tribunal’s reasons on future risk, given the accepted past persecution and the absence of identified changes in country conditions. The applicants also relied on their proposed return to Mogadishu as young single women and Article 3 of the Human Rights Convention.

1. Outcome. The application was out of time, but time was extended. Permission to appeal was granted. The Court of Appeal did not determine whether the applicants faced a real risk on return or whether Article 3 would be breached.
2. Past persecution and future risk. The AIT had accepted that the first applicant had suffered persecution because of her clan membership. Applying Demirkaya [1999] Imm App Rep 498, the court held that it was arguable that the accepted history had probative force in assessing future risk. A tribunal which concludes that a significant change in circumstances means that an applicant is no longer at risk must explain why. The absence of further incidents after 2000, the applicant’s continued residence with her family, and the father’s wish to escape civil war might not, without more, provide legally sufficient reasons for rejecting the relevance of the past persecution. The adequacy of the reasoning in paragraphs 55 and 56 was therefore questionable.
3. Proposed return and Article 3. The AIT had not addressed the submission that returning the applicants to Mogadishu as young single women would itself expose them to treatment contrary to Article 3. That issue, together with any other properly raised points, could be argued on the appeal.

Order: application granted.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): On 27 January 2006, Lord Justice Laws extended time and granted the renewed application for permission to appeal.
• Asylum and Immigration Tribunal: On 14 June 2005, the tribunal dismissed the appeal against the Secretary of State’s refusal of further leave to remain.
• Immigration Appeal Tribunal: On 31 January 2005, the IAT allowed an earlier appeal and remitted the matter to a fresh adjudicator because findings had not been made on evidence from two witnesses and recent tribunal decisions concerning the Tunni Torre position.
• Earlier permission application: Latham LJ refused permission on the papers on 7 December 2005.