YH (Iran) v Secretary of State for the Home Department

An appellate court should be slow to interfere with an immigration judge’s assessment of credibility, particularly where the decision depends on the specialist judge’s evaluation of changing oral evidence. Detailed findings identifying material inconsistencies and implausibilities may justify rejecting an asylum account. Caution is required when assessing plausibility by reference to conditions in another country, but that caution does not prevent a judge from relying on objectively implausible conduct where the reasoning is adequately explained. A material inconsistency may properly carry considerable weight. An appeal will succeed only if the reasons do not rationally support the credibility conclusion, amounting to an error of law.

The appellant, an Iranian Kurd, claimed asylum on the basis of alleged involvement with the KDPI and resulting persecution by the Iranian authorities. An adjudicator initially rejected his evidence. On first-stage reconsideration, the tribunal found errors of law in the credibility assessment and ordered a full rehearing.

On rehearing, Immigration Judge Thornton rejected the appellant’s account as fabricated, relying on inconsistencies and implausibilities concerning the concealment and movement of KDPI material, his party membership, his escape, and the death of his cousin. Permission to appeal was refused by a senior immigration judge, but granted by Carnwath LJ. The central issue was whether the immigration judge’s reasons adequately justified the adverse credibility finding.

The Court of Appeal unanimously dismissed the appeal.

1. The court will seldom interfere with a specialist immigration judge’s credibility assessment where the decision depends substantially or entirely on that assessment. Changes and additions in oral evidence may be especially difficult to evaluate on appeal, particularly without a transcript.
2. The immigration judge had set out the appellant’s account fairly and had identified several specific inconsistencies and implausibilities. These included the claimed concealment of KDPI material in a television and under a wardrobe, the repeated movement of the television through a small town despite the alleged need for secrecy, the timing of party membership, the account of his escape, and the differing accounts of when and how his cousin was killed.
3. The court accepted that caution was appropriate when assessing plausibility in a country where circumstances might differ from those in the United Kingdom. That consideration had been taken into account, but did not undermine the judge’s reasoning. The inconsistency concerning the cousin’s death was of considerable importance, and the judge was entitled to attach substantial weight to it.
4. The reasons adequately supported the conclusion that the appellant lacked credibility. No error of law was established, and the appeal was dismissed.

• Asylum and Immigration Tribunal: on full rehearing, dismissed the appellant’s appeal against refusal of asylum.
• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): permission to appeal was granted by Carnwath LJ; the appeal was dismissed unanimously.