AA (Somalia) v Secretary of State for the Home Department

Permission to appeal requires an arguable material error of law in the decision under challenge and a real prospect that an appeal would succeed. The appellate court examines the determination as a whole. A failure to refer expressly to particular evidence is not material where that evidence is too vague to affect the decisive findings. Credibility assessments, including the evaluation of discrepancies, are primarily for the immigration judge who heard the evidence. The Court of Appeal will not interfere unless an arguable material error of law is shown.

The appellant, a Somali national, claimed asylum after arriving in the United Kingdom. He relied principally on alleged membership of the Ashraf minority clan and claimed that removal would expose him to persecution or treatment contrary to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.

Immigration Judge Griffin rejected the claim, finding that the appellant had not established membership of the Ashraf clan. The AIT rejected the appellant’s challenge to that determination, and permission to appeal was refused by the AIT and subsequently by Richards LJ on paper. The appellant renewed the application orally before the Court of Appeal, alleging material errors of law in the immigration judge’s treatment of evidence, discrepancies and credibility. The central issue was whether the determination disclosed an arguable material error of law.

Application refused. Permission to appeal was refused.

1. The appellant had to show both a real prospect of the appeal succeeding and an arguable error of law in Immigration Judge Griffin’s decision. The fact that the alleged error had already been rejected by the AIT and by Richards LJ did not alter that test.
2. The proper approach was to examine the immigration judge’s determination as a whole. The determination gave substantial reasons for rejecting the appellant’s claimed membership of the Ashraf clan, including the absence of any reference to clan membership in the screening interview, the reference to Fiqi-Omar as a majority clan, weaknesses in the evidence linking the appellant to his father, the lack of weight attached to the birth certificate, and the evidence of Dr Mullen.
3. The immigration judge ought to have made specific reference to Mr Alim’s evidence about the appellant’s accent. That evidence was too vague to outweigh the important adverse findings. The omission was therefore not a material error of law.
4. The judge was entitled to find a discrepancy in the appellant’s evidence, notwithstanding counsel’s notes. The evidence was at least confusing, and the judge had prepared the determination shortly after hearing it. The complaint about reliance on the kidnapping evidence was also rejected.
5. The appellant’s fair complexion could not determine whether he belonged to the claimed minority clan. Overall, the determination disclosed no arguable material error of law.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Oral application for permission to appeal refused.
• Asylum and Immigration Tribunal: The appellant’s challenge to Immigration Judge Griffin’s determination was rejected by Immigration Judge Ward, and permission to appeal was refused.
• Immigration Judge: Immigration Judge Griffin’s determination, prepared following the hearing on 14 September 2006, rejected the appellant’s claim that he belonged to the Ashraf minority clan.