SD (Turkey) v Secretary of State for the Home Department

When assessing an asylum claimant’s risk on return, a tribunal must make precise findings about the information likely to reach the authorities at the airport and in the claimant’s home area. The absence of a record on the GBTS system is not decisive. The tribunal must consider other possible enquiries, the questions likely to be asked of a failed asylum seeker returning with emergency documentation, and the consequences of the honest answers he is likely to give. It must address those matters before deciding whether internal relocation is viable. A failure to apply the country guidance in IK (Turkey) v SSHD [2004] UKIAT 00312 in that structured way is an error of law.

The appellant, an Alevi Kurdish man from Turkey, claimed asylum after entering the United Kingdom concealed in a lorry. The immigration judge accepted his history of family suspicion, political activity, detention and mistreatment, but found no risk at the airport and considered relocation to Istanbul not unduly harsh, while accepting risk in his home area.

On reconsideration on 15 January 2007, Immigration Judge Watkins applied the country guidance in IK (Turkey) v SSHD [2004] UKIAT 00312. The appeal concerned whether that guidance had been accurately applied, particularly the availability of local records, further enquiries and likely questioning on return.

Lord Justice Moses gave the judgment. The President of the Family Division and Lord Justice Hooper agreed. The appeal was allowed.

1. Information and records. In accordance with IK (Turkey) v SSHD [2004] UKIAT 00312, the tribunal had to begin with the appellant’s material history and determine whether information about it would be known or discoverable by the authorities at the airport and in his home area. The immigration judge made no sufficiently precise finding about whether a local record existed or could be obtained through enquiries.
2. GBTS records. The absence of a record on the GBTS system was not decisive. Further enquiries could be made of local authorities, the anti-terror police or MIT where circumstances justified them. Reliance on SA (Turkey) v SSHD [2004] UKIT 00229 was therefore an unsatisfactory starting point because IK treated that decision as overtaken by subsequent events.
3. Airport questioning. The tribunal had to determine the questions likely to be asked of a failed asylum seeker returning with emergency documentation, including questions about why he had left Turkey and the circumstances of his return. It also had to assess the consequences of the honest answers the appellant was likely to give, including disclosure of his previous ill-treatment and his brothers’ suspected PKK involvement.
4. Material error and outcome. The immigration judge failed to address those matters and consequently failed to apply the country guidance. The error affected the assessment of risk at the airport. Had the appropriate questions been asked and answered, there was a real risk of persecution. The appellant would therefore not have reached the issue of internal relocation. Appeal allowed.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Allowed the appeal from the reconsideration decision of Immigration Judge Watkins.
• Immigration Appeal Tribunal: On reconsideration on 15 January 2007, accepted risk in the appellant’s home area but found no sufficient risk at the airport and considered internal relocation to Istanbul not unduly harsh.