AM (Pakistan) v Secretary of State for the Home Department

A tribunal conducting reconsideration must focus primarily on the reconsideration order, but may also consider another apparent error of law raised in submissions or identified during reconsideration. A fact-finding tribunal need not set out every item of evidence. It must state its material factual conclusions and their evidential basis. An appellate court will not find an error in failing to address an argument that was never advanced below. In an internal-relocation case, the decisive question is whether the claimant faces a real future risk on return.

The appellant, a Pakistani Christian and human rights activist, appealed against Senior Immigration Judge Jordan’s reconsideration decision dismissing his asylum and human-rights appeal (AIT No. AA/07227/2005). The reconsideration followed Dr Ransley’s dismissal of his original claim and Lloyd Jones J’s order for reconsideration on the arguable ground that evidence from the Reverend Windsor had been misunderstood.

The appellant challenged the reconsideration decision on procedural and evidential grounds, including the treatment of evidence concerning past attacks and the safety of internal relocation within Pakistan. The central issues were the scope of reconsideration, the significance of grounds not placed before the reconsidering judge, and whether the evidence supported a finding of no real future risk.

1. Appeal dismissed. The Court of Appeal held that a reconsidering tribunal is not jurisdictionally confined to the precise grounds on which reconsideration was ordered. Under paragraph 31(4) of the AIT (Procedure) Rules 2005, and applying DK (Serbia) and others v SSHD [2006] EWCA Civ 1747, it must have regard to the order or directions but may, exceptionally, consider another error of law raised in submissions or identified during reconsideration.
2. The applicable procedural rules required the application for reconsideration to be filed as submitted to the tribunal. Different grounds could not properly be introduced before the High Court. However, counsel before the reconsidering judge was free to advance any relevant argument concerning safety on return.
3. The appellant could not criticise Senior Immigration Judge Jordan for failing to address arguments which had not been advanced before him. The alleged omission therefore disclosed no error of law.
4. The tribunal was entitled to uphold Dr Ransley’s findings. A fact-finding tribunal need not set out all the evidence on each side. Its obligation is to state the material factual propositions and the evidential basis for its conclusions. There was ample objective material supporting safe relocation within Pakistan.
5. The incorrect dating of two incidents affected the significance of the appellant’s earlier voluntary return, but did not alter the conclusion on future safety. Once safe return or relocation was found, uncertainty about the source of the historical attacks did not determine the asylum or humanitarian claim. The essential question was whether the appellant faced a real risk in the future. Lords Justice Pill and Hooper agreed with Lord Justice Moses. The formal order was: Appeal dismissed.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division) — [2008] EWCA Civ 1064: appeal dismissed.
• Asylum and Immigration Tribunal — Senior Immigration Judge Jordan reconsidered the appeal on 22 February 2007 and dismissed it.
• High Court — Lloyd Jones J ordered reconsideration on the arguable ground that the evidence of the Reverend Windsor had been misunderstood.
• Asylum and Immigration Tribunal — Dr Ransley dismissed the original claim on 23 September 2005; Senior Immigration Judge Walmsley found no error of law on 17 October 2005.