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

Corroboration is not a legal requirement in an asylum claim. A tribunal may find that a claimant’s account is unsupported beyond the claimant’s own evidence, but it must not apply an assumed rule that the account will be accepted only if corroborated. Repeated references to the absence of independent evidence, coupled with adverse descriptions of the account and no explanation for requiring corroboration, may disclose an arguable error of law. The need for anxious scrutiny in asylum cases may justify granting permission to appeal where the tribunal’s reasoning raises that concern.

The appellant, an Iranian national of Kurdish ethnicity, sought asylum after claiming involvement in demonstrations and political activity connected with the Komala Party. The Secretary of State refused the claim and issued removal directions. Following reconsideration, Senior Immigration Judge Khan dismissed the appeal on 9 July 2007 under [AIT No: AA/00479/2006]. The Asylum and Immigration Tribunal refused permission, as did Longmore LJ on the papers.

On renewal, the appellant argued that the tribunal had rejected his account for want of corroboration and had failed to give adequate reasons, particularly concerning evidence from a Komala Party representative. The central issue was whether the determination disclosed an arguable legal error sufficient to warrant permission to appeal.

1. Permission granted. The application was a renewed application for permission to appeal against the Senior Immigration Judge’s dismissal of the asylum appeal.
2. Corroboration is not required as a matter of law in asylum cases. The Senior Immigration Judge was not, on the face of the determination, applying such an assumed rule merely because he observed that particular matters rested on the appellant’s word.
3. Nevertheless, the quality of the reasoning created a sufficient arguable issue. The determination repeatedly described aspects of the appellant’s account as speculation, coincidence or fanciful, while frequently noting that the only evidence was the appellant’s own account, or that of Mr Allahvaisi. That approach could suggest that the judge would not accept the account without corroboration, although no reason was given for adopting such a view.
4. The Court of Appeal therefore granted permission in light of the anxious scrutiny required in asylum cases. It did not finally determine whether the tribunal had erred in law or whether the appellant’s evidence was credible.
5. Permission was not confined to the corroboration complaint. The additional complaints that relevant matters had not been considered were treated as illustrative of the wider allegation that the conclusions lacked sufficient reasons, rather than as wholly freestanding grounds.

Order: Application granted.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): On 17 January 2008, Lord Justice Laws granted the renewed application for permission to appeal: [2008] EWCA Civ 233.
2. Asylum and Immigration Tribunal: Senior Immigration Judge Khan dismissed the appellant’s appeal on 9 July 2007. Permission to appeal was refused on 23 August 2007.
3. Earlier proceedings: An immigration judge dismissed the appellant’s initial appeal, after which the Tribunal ordered reconsideration of all matters.
4. Secretary of State: The asylum claim was refused in December 2005 and directions for removal were issued.