SA (Syria) & Anor v Secretary of State for the Home Department

Country guidance must ordinarily be followed, but it may be treated as inapplicable where the facts differ, or reconsidered where circumstances have materially changed or significant new evidence warrants revision or refinement. An appellate tribunal must engage substantively with credible country evidence. A report from a reputable organisation cannot be dismissed merely because it lacks fully identified sources. An expert opinion cannot be rejected solely because reliable statistics are unavailable, particularly where the absence of statistics is itself explicable. The tribunal must evaluate the evidence and give legally adequate reasons for accepting or rejecting it. Failure to do so is a material error of law requiring reconsideration, without implying that the underlying asylum claim must succeed.

Two Syrian Kurdish, stateless appellants appealed from separate decisions of the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal. SA challenged the treatment of evidence concerning the risks faced by a person who had left Syria unlawfully and made an unsuccessful asylum claim. IA raised the same issue and additionally relied on participation in demonstrations outside the Syrian Embassy in the United Kingdom.

The Tribunal applied the country guidance in SY (Syria) v SSHD [2005] UKIAT 00039 and AR (Syria) v SSHD [2006] UKAIT 00048, which treated a political profile as potentially material, but dismissed both appeals. The central issue was whether the Tribunal had lawfully evaluated the Amnesty International evidence and the expert reports relied upon to depart from or distinguish that guidance.

1. Appeals allowed and remitted. The Court of Appeal allowed both appeals and directed reconsideration by the Tribunal. The order did not indicate that either asylum claim should ultimately succeed.
2. Country guidance should ordinarily be applied. It may properly be treated as inapplicable to particular facts, reconsidered where circumstances have materially changed, or revised or refined in the light of significant new evidence. The Tribunal must give legally adequate reasons for taking such a course. This approach was stated in R (Iran) & Ors v SSHD [2005] EWCA Civ 982, approving the passage from NM (Somalia) & Ors v SSHD [2005] UKIAT 00076.
3. In SA’s case, the Tribunal erred in treating the Amnesty International letter as an unsourced document. Amnesty International was a body of high repute, and the report indicated its sources in broad terms. The Tribunal was not bound to accept its opinions, but it had to engage properly with the substance of the report. Its treatment of Ms Laizer’s expert report was too cursory to engage with the relevant evidence.
4. In IA’s case, the evidence of Dr George concerning surveillance and the possible identification of participants in demonstrations contained sufficient substance to require proper consideration. It could not simply be dismissed as not amounting to evidence. The Tribunal also misread the Amnesty International letter, which applied to IA, and failed to evaluate its cogency.
5. These were serious errors in the treatment of material evidence. The Court expressed no view on the ultimate merits. It also considered that a fresh examination of the position of Syrian Kurds making unsuccessful asylum claims was highly desirable in light of possible changes in conditions and further country guidance proceedings.

• Asylum and Immigration Tribunal: SA’s appeal was dismissed after the Tribunal rejected his account and declined to depart from the country guidance. IA’s appeal was initially dismissed; reconsideration was ordered because the risk on return had not been properly considered, and the reconsideration appeal was again dismissed.
• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Both appeals were allowed and remitted for reconsideration.