A v Secretary of State for the Home Department

In an asylum appeal concerning return to Somalia, an immigration judge must address whether a lone woman can safely reach and live in her home area, having regard to available clan protection. The judge need not identify the precise person who would provide support where the claimant’s evidence has generally been disbelieved, provided the findings show a clear conclusion that she would not be without protection. Country guidance requires careful findings on internal safety of travel where the evidence permits, but it does not require findings beyond the quality of the evidence.

The appellant, a Somali citizen of Tunni Torre identity, claimed asylum after arriving in the United Kingdom. Her claim was refused and an adjudicator dismissed her appeal. The Asylum and Immigration Tribunal remitted the matter for fresh consideration because several factual findings were arguably perverse. On reconsideration, an immigration judge rejected the asylum and human-rights appeals.

Permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal was granted on the issue whether the immigration judge had sufficiently considered the appellant’s safety as a lone woman returning through Mogadishu airport to her home area. Other grounds were abandoned. The central issue was whether the judge’s findings adequately addressed the availability of protection on return.

1. The appeal was dismissed. The challenge was confined to whether the immigration judge had sufficiently addressed the risk faced by the appellant as a lone woman returning to Somalia.
2. The country guidance in NM [2005] UKIAT 00076 treated majority-clan protection as materially relevant to risk. It also required careful findings about internal safety of travel to the extent that the evidence permitted. The guidance recognised that an unannounced arrival of a lone female at Mogadishu airport could create a real risk without special factors, while a woman might in principle rely on her own clan and clan family.
3. The immigration judge made the unchallenged findings that the appellant had majority-clan protection and that her home area was Mogadishu. Although he rejected most of her account, he considered the circumstances in which she would return and concluded that she would not be without someone to turn to. His findings concerning her husband and family indicated that protection remained available in Somalia or through the relevant clan network.
4. The findings could have been more specific, but the judge was not required to identify precisely who would provide support. That was particularly so because the appellant’s evidence had generally been disbelieved. The conclusion was sufficiently clear and addressed the material issue. There was therefore no error of law in the reconsideration decision.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): [2006] EWCA Civ 933; dismissed the appeal.
• Asylum and Immigration Tribunal: On 1 April 2005, notified on 7 April 2005, remitted the original dismissal for fresh consideration before a different adjudicator because several factual findings were arguably perverse.
• Immigration judge: On reconsideration on 17 August 2005, dismissed the appeals on asylum and human-rights grounds.
• Adjudicator: Dismissed the appellant’s appeal following the hearing on 22 November 2004; the decision was promulgated on 17 January 2005.