IS (Somalia) v Secretary of State for the Home Department

Permission to appeal should be granted where an asylum determination arguably reflects an error of law in its approach to credibility or its treatment of material evidence. A decision-maker must assemble all evidence, both favourable and adverse, logically and evaluate it objectively and dispassionately. Failure to engage with relevant country information, or with evidence materially supporting the applicant’s account, may make the decision arguably unlawful. The Court of Appeal may grant permission where there is an arguable failure to provide the fair and objective decision guaranteed by law.

The appellant, a Somali national, sought permission to appeal against a reconsidered determination by Immigration Judge Olson of the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal. Earlier adverse credibility findings had been set aside for full reconsideration by Senior Immigration Judge Batiste. The renewed application followed Longmore LJ’s refusal of permission on the papers.

The appellant argued that the latest determination assessed his personal account selectively, failed to engage with relevant country material and ignored his detailed knowledge of the claimed sub-clan. The central issue was whether those matters disclosed an arguable error of law warranting permission to appeal.

1. Permission granted. It was arguable that Immigration Judge Olson had erred in law by rejecting the appellant’s claimed clan membership after rejecting his personal account, without addressing his detailed knowledge of the clan’s structure.
2. It was also arguable that the credibility reasoning was insufficiently objective. The determination relied on assumptions about the duration of persecution, the conduct of majority-clan neighbours, forced labour, escape from zealots and a meeting at a London mosque. Those matters could not properly be dismissed summarily where they were capable of fitting human experience and other evidence.
3. An asylum claimant is entitled to have all evidence, both for and against the claim, logically assembled and dispassionately evaluated. That entitlement includes an objective decision, not merely the avoidance of procedural unfairness.
4. The earlier Immigration Judge had failed to refer to any in-country material, and the renewed determination arguably repeated the failure to reach an objective decision. The Court expressed no view on the ultimate merits of the asylum claim. The application for permission to appeal was granted.

• Asylum and Immigration Tribunal: Immigration Judge Olson rejected the appellant’s claim on credibility grounds following a full reconsideration directed by Senior Immigration Judge Batiste. The earlier Immigration Judge’s determination had been set aside after failing to refer to in-country material. [AIT No: AA/00136/2007]
• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Longmore LJ refused permission on the papers. On renewal, Sedley LJ granted permission because errors of law in the assessment of credibility and material evidence were arguable. [2008] EWCA Civ 395