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

Country guidance is authoritative, but it is not applied as though it were statutory text. An appellant identified as a political activist does not thereby establish a real risk of persecution or serious ill-treatment. The tribunal must assess the extent of the activism and all relevant evidence in the round, including personal risk factors such as ethnicity, regional origin and religion. An appellate court should not substitute its own factual assessment for that of an expert tribunal. It should intervene only where a clear error of law or a conclusion not properly open to the tribunal is shown. A determination is adequate if it directs itself on the law, identifies material facts, states the overall conclusion and gives sufficient reasons to show that relevant matters were considered.

The appellant, an Ivory Coast national, appealed against the dismissal of his asylum and human rights claims. An Immigration Judge initially dismissed the appeal on 20 April 2007. Reconsideration was ordered on limited grounds, including whether the appellant would remain politically active on return and whether his ethnicity, northern origin, religion and activities in the United Kingdom increased the risk at the airport. On second-stage reconsideration, the same judge again dismissed the appeal on 7 November 2007, applying the country guidance in GG (Political Oppositionists) Ivory Coast CG [2007] UKAIT 00086 and finding that the appellant had not established a real risk of persecution or serious ill-treatment, or that internal relocation would be unduly harsh. The central issue was whether the judge had misunderstood or misapplied that guidance.

1. Appeal dismissed. The Immigration Judge had not misunderstood or misapplied GG (Political Oppositionists) Ivory Coast CG [2007] UKAIT 00086. Country guidance is authoritative, but its language must not be treated as statutory text. It does not establish that every activist faces a real risk on return.
2. The proper task is an assessment of risk on the full evidence. The tribunal must consider the extent of the claimant’s activism, what the claimant did for the organisation, and the weight to be given to other factors. Labelling a claimant an activist, or a mid-level activist, does not determine the outcome. Ethnicity, birthplace, religion and other personal characteristics may increase risk, but their significance remains fact-sensitive.
3. The appellate court’s role is supervisory. Applying the guidance in AH v Secretary of State for the Home Department, and the approach referred to in Cooke v Secretary of State for Social Security [2001] EWCA Civ 734, [2002] 3 All ER 279, it should respect the specialist tribunal’s findings unless a clear legal misdirection is shown. It should not reargue the case as if it were hearing the evidence at first instance, or intervene merely because another tribunal might have reached a different conclusion or expressed itself differently.
4. An Immigration Judge’s determination should address four matters: the relevant law; important facts and findings; the overall asylum or human rights conclusion; and reasons sufficient to show that relevant matters were considered and to explain the result. The determination satisfied those requirements. The internal-relocation ground therefore did not require consideration, because the appellant failed on the principal ground.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): appeal from the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal dismissed. The court upheld the second-stage reconsideration determination dated 7 November 2007.
• Asylum and Immigration Tribunal: reconsideration had been ordered on limited grounds after an Immigration Judge dismissed the appeal on 20 April 2007. On second-stage reconsideration, Immigration Judge Rose again dismissed the appeal.