AB (Iran) v Secretary of State for the Home Department

An immigration judge’s credibility finding is open to challenge on appeal only where the reasons for rejecting the account are insufficient or unsustainable, such that an error of law arises. Where the judge has considered the objective country evidence and given sustainable reasons for rejecting the applicant’s core factual account, that evidence does not require a different conclusion. An appellate court should not recharacterise a factual challenge as a point of law merely because the applicant relies on the conditions in the country of origin.

AB (Iran) v Secretary of State for the Home Department concerned an Iranian national whose asylum claim was based on alleged political activity supporting the Constitutional Movement of Iran, including graffiti, distribution of material and association with a family member who had obtained asylum in the United Kingdom.

The Secretary of State refused the claim. The applicant’s appeal was dismissed, reconsideration was ordered, and the appeal was again dismissed by the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal after a hearing on 22 August. The applicant sought permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal, alleging that the immigration judge had mishandled credibility, objective evidence and the Iranian context. The central issue was whether the credibility findings disclosed an error of law.

The Court of Appeal, in judgments given by Latham LJ and May LJ, refused the application.

1. Credibility findings and error of law. A challenge to an immigration judge’s credibility assessment is capable of raising an appealable point of law where the judge has failed to give sufficient and sustainable reasons for rejecting the applicant’s core factual account. The appellate question is not whether the reviewing court would have reached the same factual conclusion.
2. Reasons in the present case. The immigration judge gave several reasons for rejecting the applicant’s account, including the implausibility of the alleged graffiti activities and embassy deliveries, doubts about the warrant and court attendance notice, and the absence of supporting oral evidence from the persons who had supplied letters. Those reasons were sufficiently clear and sustainable.
3. Objective evidence. The judge had considered the objective evidence about the treatment of monarchists and referendum supporters in Iran. He was entitled to conclude that it did not overcome his finding that the applicant’s evidence was not credible. The asserted political activity therefore could not provide a factual basis for the proposed challenge.
4. May LJ agreed with Latham LJ. Once the credibility finding was sustainable, the submissions founded on the applicant’s asserted political activity and likely treatment in Iran fell away. No error of law was disclosed.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Application for permission to appeal refused. [2008] EWCA Civ 221.
2. Asylum and Immigration Tribunal: Following an order for reconsideration, the applicant’s appeal was dismissed after a hearing on 22 August. AIT No: AA/01182/2006.
3. Initial decision: The Secretary of State refused the asylum claim and the applicant’s appeal was dismissed in March 2006.