NS (Sudan) v Secretary of State for the Home Department

An applicant’s occupation, student status or humanitarian activity does not, without more, establish a real risk of persecution or ill-treatment on return. The relevant question is whether the applicant has been identified through political activity or expression of anti-government views. Where an immigration judge has considered the evidence and reached a conclusion open on that evidence, including rejecting documents for explained reasons, disagreement with the factual assessment does not constitute an error of law. A finding that the applicant was not previously known to the authorities may therefore be decisive against a claimed risk on return.

The appellant claimed asylum and human-rights protection after arriving in the United Kingdom from Sudan. He relied on his Darfuri background, former involvement with a student organisation, humanitarian assistance, legal qualification and alleged arrests and detention. The Immigration Judge rejected the account of arrest and detention and found that the appellant had not been identified by the Sudanese authorities.

Following an earlier reconsideration order based on material errors in the first determination, Immigration Judge Grimmett dismissed the appeal after a second-stage hearing. Permission to appeal was granted. The central issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the Immigration Judge had erred in law by failing to assess the risk on return arising from the limited activities and characteristics which she accepted.

The appeal was dismissed. Lord Justice Longmore gave the substantive judgment. Lord Justices Richards and Buxton agreed.

1. The Immigration Judge had considered the relevant documents and was entitled to reject the appellant’s account of post-2001 student-union activity, high-level negotiations and dealings with the Sudanese authorities. Her conclusions were open to her on the evidence and her reasons were adequate. The Court of Appeal found no error of law in that approach.
2. The Country Guidance decision in HGMO v SSHD [2006] UKIAT 00062 indicated that students, lawyers and other professional groups were not risk categories in their own right. Any risk arose where individuals had been identified through political activity or expression of anti-government views. The Court was satisfied that the Immigration Judge had considered the relevant parts of that decision, including the passages at paragraphs 274 and 283.
3. On the accepted findings, the appellant had not previously been identified by the Sudanese authorities. His former position in a Darfuri student organisation, low-level humanitarian assistance, legal profession and status as an unsuccessful asylum seeker returning involuntarily did not establish a real risk of persecution or other ill-treatment. The conclusion that there was no reasonable likelihood or substantial ground for believing that he was at risk was open on the evidence.

Appeal dismissed.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Appeal dismissed.
• Asylum & Immigration Tribunal Following reconsideration, Immigration Judge Grimmett dismissed the asylum and human-rights appeal by determination dated 17 January 2007 (AIT No: AA/07402/2006). An earlier determination had been found to contain a material error of law and was set aside for a second-stage reconsideration.