EG (Russia) & Anor v Secretary of State for the Home Department

An immigration fact-finder must assess credibility without assuming that a person who continues to oppose persecution is acting implausibly. Such an assumption may deny the possibility of courage and principled resistance, which asylum and human rights law recognise. Although adverse credibility findings must be respected when properly reached, a tribunal must not use a generalised or free-standing implausibility finding before examining the detail of the account. Documentary evidence must also be assessed independently. The possibility that documents are false but record true information remains material. The application was adjourned to allow restoration on notice and consideration of reconsideration by the tribunal and amendment of the grounds.

A mother and daughter from Russia challenged adverse asylum and human rights decisions. An immigration judge rejected their account of persecution, relying in part on the alleged implausibility of their continuing public activity despite attacks and threats, and treating supporting documents as unreliable because their credibility had already been rejected.

The Asylum and Immigration Tribunal upheld the decision on reconsideration on 20 July 2006. The applicants sought to pursue a challenge concerning the treatment of documents under Tanveer Ahmed and potentially to amend their grounds to challenge the reliance on implausibility. The central issue was whether the credibility assessment required reconsideration.

1. Application adjourned. The court did not finally determine the asylum or human rights claims. It adjourned the application for restoration on notice to the Home Office.
2. An immigration judge may reach and maintain an adverse credibility conclusion, but the assessment must be conducted without a preconceived assumption that a person would not continue resisting persecution or seeking publicity after suffering serious mistreatment.
3. A generalised or free-standing finding of implausibility made before the detail of an asylum claimant’s account has been assessed was described as wholly unacceptable. It risked denying credit to the possibility of courage and principled resistance.
4. The AIT had failed to criticise that reasoning and had reinforced it by describing the mother’s conduct as inviting persecution and the family’s conduct as provoking retaliation. If the opening approach was unjustified, the specific adverse findings might require dispassionate reconsideration.
5. The court also identified a potentially arguable issue under Tanveer Ahmed: documents may be false while the information recorded in them is true. Rejecting documents solely because the applicants had already been disbelieved therefore required careful consideration.
6. On restoration, the Home Office was invited to consider whether the case called for full reconsideration by the AIT and whether it was right to oppose enlargement of the grounds. Lord Justice Ward agreed with Lord Justice Sedley.

• Asylum and Immigration Tribunal: An immigration judge rejected the appellants’ asylum and human rights claims. The AIT upheld that decision on reconsideration on 20 July 2006.
• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): The application was adjourned for restoration on notice to the Home Office.