SJ (Iraq) v Secretary of State for the Home Department

On a renewed application for permission to appeal in an asylum and human-rights case, it was arguable that the immigration judge had not adequately reasoned the rejection of a distinct risk claim. A finding that the appellant lacked credibility about training the police did not necessarily answer whether, as a national Tae Kwon Do team member, he faced a real risk of kidnapping. Decision-makers must address each materially separate asylum ground. Permission to appeal was granted; the merits were not determined.

The appellant, an Iraqi Arab and Tae Kwon Do practitioner, claimed asylum and leave to remain on human-rights grounds. He alleged both a specific risk arising from training the local police and a broader risk of kidnapping because of his participation in the Iraqi national team.

The original immigration judge rejected his account of training the police and dismissed the broader risk claim. On first-stage reconsideration, Designated Immigration Judge Olson found no material error of law. The renewed application concerned whether the original decision had adequately addressed the risk based on sports participation, separately from the police-training allegation.

1. Application granted. The renewed application for permission to appeal was allowed. The Court of Appeal did not determine the underlying asylum or human-rights claims.
2. Adequacy of reasons. The central issue was whether the immigration judge had given adequate reasons for concluding that the appellant was not at real risk of suffering the fate of other members of the national team. The statement that not every sportsperson or celebrity was at real risk of kidnapping did not necessarily explain the conclusion on this appellant’s distinct circumstances.
3. Separate grounds. The rejection of the appellant’s credibility concerning police training was potentially irrelevant to whether the decision adequately addressed the broader risk arising from his participation in the national team. The reconsidering judge’s reliance on the credibility findings therefore did not resolve the arguable reasoning defect.
4. Permission threshold. Although a Lord Justice considering the papers had found no real prospect of success, oral argument and reflection showed that the issue identified by the Senior Immigration Judge was certainly arguable. Permission to appeal was accordingly granted.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): On 9 July 2008, granted the renewed application for permission to appeal.
• Asylum and Immigration Tribunal: Designated Immigration Judge Olson dismissed the appeal on first-stage reconsideration on 23 November 2007, finding no material error of law.
• Original immigration decision: The appellant’s asylum and human-rights claims had been rejected, including the claim based on his Tae Kwon Do participation.