XZ (China) v Secretary of State for the Home Department

In an asylum appeal, points not raised before the immigration judge or on reconsideration cannot be introduced for the first time in the Court of Appeal. Where the judge has considered safeguards governing an interview with a minor, taken the claimant’s age into account and found no misunderstanding, no error of law arises merely because each safeguard was not addressed separately. A challenge which recasts inconsistencies as implausibilities raises no legal point where the credibility findings are thoroughly reasoned. A tribunal may reach a conclusion on objective country evidence despite evidence of an inconsistent official attitude, where that conclusion was open to it.

The applicant, a Chinese citizen who claimed to have been aged 16 on arrival in the United Kingdom, sought asylum on the basis of his alleged membership of the Real Jesus Church and feared persecution on return. An immigration judge rejected his account, finding that his grandfather had not been arrested, that the applicant was not of interest to the Chinese authorities, and that he could safely practise his faith on return.

The Asylum and Immigration Tribunal upheld that decision on first-stage reconsideration. In a renewed application for permission to appeal, the applicant raised new complaints about his asylum interview as a minor and renewed challenges to the credibility findings and treatment of objective evidence. The central issue was whether any arguable error of law justified permission to appeal.

The renewed application for permission to appeal was refused.

1. The first three grounds concerned the absence of an appropriate adult, the absence of a tape recording and alleged failures to follow immigration and UNHCR guidance governing interviews with minors. Those points had not been specifically raised before the immigration judge or on reconsideration. The Court of Appeal held that new points could not be made for the first time at that stage. In any event, the immigration judge had expressly considered the relevant guidance, the applicant’s age and his ability to understand the case he was presenting.
2. The judge was entitled to find that the applicant was articulate and sophisticated, to make appropriate allowances for his age and to conclude that no mistake or misunderstanding had resulted from his youth. The absence of a separate discussion of each interview safeguard therefore disclosed no error of law.
3. The submission that the judge had treated implausibilities as inconsistencies was regarded as immaterial. The distinction did not raise a point of law. The principle discussed in HK v SSHD [2006] EWCA Civ 1037, that implausibility does not by itself establish that an account is untrue, did not assist the applicant because the credibility decision was thoroughly reasoned and had been tested and accepted on reconsideration.
4. The immigration judge had been entitled to reach his conclusion on the objective evidence. That evidence indicated that the Chinese authorities’ attitude to house churches was not always consistent, but it remained open to the judge to decide that the applicant was not at risk. The Senior Immigration Judge had dealt with this challenge adequately.

The application was accordingly refused.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): refused the renewed application for permission to appeal from the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal.
• Asylum and Immigration Tribunal: on first-stage reconsideration, upheld its earlier dismissal of the applicant’s appeal against the refusal of asylum and related humanitarian and human-rights claims.