Langah, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department

When deciding whether further representations amount to a fresh asylum claim, the Secretary of State must consider the evidence individually and rationally. A general observation that documents from a particular country may be fabricated cannot, without more, justify rejection. Where documentary evidence is relied upon, the decision-maker may require evidence explaining how the documents came into existence, how they were obtained and why they are genuine. A later, more detailed decision may supersede an earlier inadequate consideration before the judicial review hearing. The court will then assess the later decision for rationality, asking whether it falls within the range of decisions open to a competent decision-maker.

The claimant sought judicial review of the Secretary of State’s decision of 2 May 2006 refusing to treat further representations as a fresh asylum claim. The representations included documents said to be originals of two Pakistani arrest warrants and a letter from a Pakistani advocate. The initial decision rejected the documents largely on the basis that arrest warrants could easily be fabricated.

Permission was granted because that reasoning appeared insufficient. The Secretary of State subsequently considered the originals and responded in detail on 14 September 2006. The parties agreed that the later documents and response should be considered in determining the challenge to the earlier decision. The central issue was whether the Secretary of State’s subsequent assessment of the documents was legally rational.

1. The claim was refused. The Secretary of State’s detailed letter of 14 September 2006 effectively superseded the inadequate initial rejection contained in the letter of 2 May 2006.
2. The initial reasoning, which relied substantially on the ease with which arrest-warrant evidence could be fabricated, did not sufficiently consider the particular documents. The Secretary of State accepted that this bald reasoning was inadequate, and the court treated the grant of permission as justified on that basis.
3. The later decision properly considered the timing of the documents, the absence of an explanation for how the claimant obtained them, the absence of an explanation as to how the Pakistani advocate had been instructed, the claimant’s previous credibility findings, and the similarity between the new material and his original asylum account.
4. The approach described in Naseer v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2006] EWHC 1671 was applied. Documentary evidence may reasonably be rejected where there is no adequate explanation of how it came into existence and was obtained, or evidence supporting its genuineness. Each case must nevertheless be considered on its individual merits rather than by a blanket policy.
5. The conclusions reached in the September letter were reasonably open to the Secretary of State and fell within the range of decisions available to a competent decision-maker. The court also agreed with those conclusions, although that agreement was not necessary to the legal test.
6. The claimant was ordered to pay £500 towards the defendant’s costs, payable within 28 days. Permission to appeal was refused because the case raised no new principle.