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

On a second-stage reconsideration, the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal is entitled to hear the appeal afresh and reach its own view of the merits. It is not bound by views expressed in an earlier reconsideration decision, including views about previous representatives. Whether to grant an adjournment is a matter for the Tribunal. A refusal is not a legal error where the Tribunal reasonably considers that the evidence could have been obtained earlier and would not resolve the central inconsistencies. Challenges to credibility findings must identify an error of law; disagreement with factual assessments cannot simply be converted into a legal ground. A comment that expert evidence is unlikely to resolve inconsistent accounts does not, without more, amount to prejudgment.

The applicant, who claimed Somali nationality and minority-clan membership, appealed against the Secretary of State’s refusal of asylum and leave to enter on asylum, human rights and humanitarian protection grounds. On second-stage reconsideration, the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal rejected her account, including her claimed ethnicity and clan membership, and dismissed the appeal.

Permission to appeal was refused by a Senior Immigration Judge and subsequently by Richards LJ on the papers. The applicant renewed her application before the Court of Appeal, alleging errors concerning an adjournment, the conduct of previous solicitors, the Tribunal’s approach to the earlier reconsideration decision, credibility findings and alleged prejudgment.

The renewed application for permission to appeal was refused.

1. The challenges to the credibility findings disclosed no arguable error of law. They sought to turn factual disagreement, including complaints about corroborative evidence and an alleged explanation for a mistake concerning clan membership, into legal error. The Tribunal had given extensive reasons for rejecting the applicant’s account.

2. The Tribunal was entitled to decide for itself whether the alleged incompetence of previous solicitors affected the application for an adjournment. It was not bound by any particular view of that issue expressed by Senior Immigration Judge Chalkley. The second-stage reconsideration was correctly conducted as a fresh hearing of the appeal on the merits as they appeared at that time.

3. The grant or refusal of an adjournment was a matter for the Tribunal. The Tribunal had noted that the need for expert evidence on ethnicity had been apparent for a considerable period, that several representatives had acted, that no report had been produced and that the proposed expert evidence could not resolve inconsistent claims. Refusal of the adjournment disclosed no legal error.

4. The Tribunal’s observation that an expert could not resolve inconsistent assertions about clan membership was a permissible assessment of the likely evidential value of the proposed report. It did not demonstrate that the Tribunal had prejudged the issues.

Ground 3 was abandoned. The formal order was: application refused.

• Asylum and Immigration Tribunal: On second-stage reconsideration, the Tribunal dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the refusal of asylum and leave to enter.
• Senior Immigration Judge: Permission to appeal was refused on 10 January 2008. Richards LJ refused permission on consideration of the papers on 22 April 2008.
• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): The renewed application for permission to appeal was refused: [2008] EWCA Civ 681.