MA (Ethiopia) v Secretary of State for the Home Department

On a renewed application for permission to appeal from an asylum decision, the Court of Appeal will respect the specialist tribunal’s assessment unless a clear error of law is shown. Disagreement with factual findings does not establish an appealable error or unfairness. An extension of time may be refused where the proposed appeal lacks merit, despite arguable reasons for delay.

The appellant, an Ethiopian national of Oromo origin, claimed asylum based on alleged persecution for suspected support of the Oromo Liberation Front. His account was rejected, although limited membership of the Rainbow Party was accepted.

On reconsideration, the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal rejected claims based on United Kingdom political activity and likely future activity in Ethiopia. A senior immigration judge refused permission to appeal. The appellant renewed his application in the Court of Appeal and sought an extension of time.

1. Applications refused. The Court of Appeal refused permission to appeal and declined to extend time.
2. The appellant’s challenge largely disagreed with the tribunal’s factual findings. The tribunal had rejected his core account and was not satisfied that his activities had come to the attention of the Ethiopian authorities.
3. The tribunal accepted that demonstrating against the authorities on behalf of the CUD in Ethiopia would create a risk of detention and ill-treatment, but found that the appellant was not likely to undertake that activity. That was an evidential assessment, not an error of law.
4. The court applied the guidance from AH (Sudan): a specialist tribunal’s decision should be respected unless it is clear that the tribunal misdirected itself in law. There was no reasonable prospect of establishing any material error of law.
5. Although there were arguably good reasons for the delay, an extension was refused because the proposed appeal lacked sufficient merit.

• Asylum and Immigration Tribunal: On reconsideration, dismissed the appeal from the Secretary of State’s refusal of the asylum and related claims.
• Asylum and Immigration Tribunal: A senior immigration judge refused permission to appeal, finding no error of law.
• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Buxton LJ had previously refused permission. Lord Justice Tuckey refused the renewed applications.