DG (Ivory Coast) v Secretary of State for the Home Department

Permission to appeal may be granted where criticisms of an asylum determination are sufficiently numerous and well founded to make it possible that errors of fact undermine its conclusions. The overall approach and tone of a determination may also be relevant where they arguably call the decision-maker’s objectivity into question. A late issue concerning inadequate representation and absent witnesses may warrant further inquiry where it could affect the justice received by the applicant. At the permission stage, the court need not finally determine the factual criticisms or the admissibility of late evidence.

The appellant lost her asylum and human rights appeal before Immigration Judge Bircher. Her reconsideration application was mistakenly refused as out of time, but Silber J remitted the case. Senior Immigration Judge Warr later found no legal flaws and dismissed the challenge. The appellant alleged serious fact-finding errors, including unexplained implausibility findings, failure to evaluate witness evidence, and unfair treatment of a rape allegation. She also raised a late issue concerning representation by AFRIC and witness attendance. The central issue was whether these matters justified permission to appeal.

1. Permission granted. Lord Justice Sedley did not determine the merits of the asylum or human rights claim.
2. The criticisms of the Immigration Judge’s reasoning were sufficiently numerous and well founded to make it possible that errors of fact undermined the determination’s conclusions. These included reliance on missing original documents, failure to call or evaluate potentially important witnesses, unexplained findings of implausibility, and treating the late disclosure of rape as embellishment.
3. The determination’s uniformly dismissive approach and tone arguably called its objectivity into question and provided an additional reason for granting permission.
4. A sketchy and unspecific passage concerning internal relocation, appearing outside the stated conclusions, could not safely be treated as a discrete finding or holding.
5. The late evidence concerning AFRIC’s promised representation and advice about witness attendance required proper inquiry. Although there were difficulties in admitting disputed late statements, the Treasury Solicitor was expected to investigate matters potentially relevant to the justice received by the appellant and to cooperate where appropriate.

• Asylum and Immigration Tribunal: Immigration Judge Bircher dismissed the asylum and human rights appeal.
• Reconsideration: The application was refused as out of time; Silber J remitted the case.
• Asylum and Immigration Tribunal: Senior Immigration Judge Warr found no legal flaws and dismissed the challenge.
• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Permission to appeal was granted; the substantive appeal was not determined.