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

In country-guidance asylum appeals, risk on return must be assessed on the individual facts and circumstances. Guidance factors are non-exhaustive and must not be treated as a checklist. Suspected connection with or sympathy for the PKK may establish risk, but does not by itself establish a real risk; the level and basis of the suspected involvement are important. It is permissible to consider whether the authorities previously singled out the claimant from others in the same village, but the claimant need not prove worse treatment than fellow villagers. Challenges directed only to the weight assigned to evidence ordinarily disclose no error of law. The specialist tribunals had considered the relevant detentions, ill-treatment and regional circumstances and had made no material error of law.

The appellant, a Turkish Kurd and Alevi, claimed asylum after entering the United Kingdom in March 2001. He relied on past assistance to the PKK, several detentions and episodes of ill-treatment, and feared persecution on return. The adjudicator accepted much of his evidence but found no PKK membership, monitoring, charges or current pursuit. She concluded that airport questioning and possible local enquiries would not create a real risk. The Asylum & Immigration Tribunal dismissed the appeal on reconsideration, relying on A (Risk, Guidelines, Separatist) Turkey [2003] UKIAT 00034 and IK (Returnees - Records - IFA) Turkey [2004] UKIAT 00312. The central issue was whether the AIT had erred in law in assessing risk on return.

1. The appeal was dismissed. The Court of Appeal found no material error of law in the adjudicator’s or the AIT’s assessment of the appellant’s risk on return.
2. The court accepted the country guidance summarised from A (Risk, Guidelines, Separatist) Turkey [2003] UKIAT 00034 and IK (Returnees - Records - IFA) Turkey [2004] UKIAT 00312. Risk depended on a range of factors, including the level and basis of known or suspected involvement with the PKK, information available at the border, possible detention and enquiries in the claimant’s home area. Those factors were non-exhaustive and were not to be treated as a checklist.
3. Suspected connection with or sympathy for the PKK was capable of showing risk, but was not determinative. The AIT was entitled to distinguish lower-level support from PKK membership or exceptional political activity and to take account of the fact that the appellant’s involvement was no greater than that of others in his village.
4. It was permissible to consider whether the authorities had previously singled out the appellant from fellow villagers for detention or ill-treatment. This did not impose a condition that he prove worse treatment than others.
5. Arguments that insufficient weight had been given to the appellant’s previous detentions and ill-treatment were challenges to the merits and weight of the evidence, rather than errors of law. The matters had plainly been taken into account, and the specialist tribunals’ assessment should be supported in the absence of material legal error.
6. Although it would have been preferable for the adjudicator expressly to identify the significance of the Bingol region, her repeated references to Bingol showed awareness of the relevant circumstances. The omission did not invalidate her decision or the AIT’s decision. Appeal dismissed.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): dismissed the appeal from the AIT’s reconsideration decision.
2. Asylum & Immigration Tribunal: dismissed the appellant’s appeal on reconsideration of the adjudicator’s decision.
3. Adjudicator: dismissed the appeal against the Secretary of State’s refusal to grant asylum and related humanitarian relief.
4. Secretary of State for the Home Department: refused the appellant’s asylum claim and related humanitarian relief.