KP (Iran) v Secretary of State for the Home Department

On a renewed application for permission to appeal, cogent, intelligible and adequate credibility findings by an immigration tribunal do not disclose an error of law merely because the appellant challenges the evaluation of evidence or the weight given to particular matters. Linked appeals by a parent and dependent child may be determined in one determination where both appeals are addressed and no separate evidence or submissions are advanced for the child. Whether both appeals were determined depends on the whole procedural history and circumstances, not on whether separate documents were issued. An Article 8 challenge need not be deferred pending possible reconsideration of EM (Lebanon) where the factual findings independently dispose of the human-rights claim.

KP and her son RD, Iranian citizens, challenged the Secretary of State’s refusal of their asylum and humanitarian protection claims. After an earlier reconsideration process identified material errors in the first determination, the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal dismissed both appeals in a single determination dated 3 December 2007. It rejected KP’s account and addressed RD as her dependant. The renewed application challenged the adequacy and impartiality of the fact-finding, the treatment of Iranian custody law and the Article 8 claim. It also argued that RD’s appeal had not been separately determined and sought delay pending the House of Lords’ decision in EM (Lebanon). The central issues were whether an error of law or procedural failure was shown and whether permission should be granted.

1. Disposition. The renewed application for permission to appeal was refused.
2. The Court agreed with the AIT and Longmore LJ that the findings rejecting KP’s evidence were cogent, intelligible and adequate. The various challenges concerning her medical history, her husband’s conduct and position, the alleged affair, her escape, the tribunal’s treatment of depression, and alleged judicial frustration or speculation did not disclose an arguable error of law.
3. The human-rights challenge also provided no basis for permission. Although the AIT had considered that reliance on Article 8 arising from loss of custody was foreclosed by EM (Lebanon) [2006] EWCA Civ 1531, the Court did not need to determine the effect of any possible reversal by the House of Lords. The factual findings in paragraphs 113 and 117 of the AIT’s determination independently disposed of the human-rights claim.
4. Both KP’s and RD’s appeals had in fact been dealt with. The procedural history showed that there had been two appeals throughout, although they were considered together. Immigration Judge Baird expressly recorded that only one determination would be provided and that no separate evidence or submissions were advanced for RD. The determination addressed RD’s separate position and rejected the only argument specific to him, namely the asserted risk of separation from KP and return to his father.
5. Separate documents were not necessary where the tribunal had addressed both appeals. The Court added that, had the procedural point been made out, the argument that the outcome would necessarily have been unchanged would not have been attractive; on the circumstances as a whole, however, no such point arose.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): On 10 July 2008, the renewed application for permission to appeal was refused: [2008] EWCA Civ 975.
• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): On 19 March 2008, Longmore LJ rejected the paper application for permission, finding no question of law in the tribunal’s findings.
• Asylum and Immigration Tribunal: Immigration Judge Baird dismissed both appeals in a determination dated 3 December 2007.
• Asylum and Immigration Tribunal: Following reconsideration, Senior Immigration Judge Lane found material errors of law in the earlier determination, including inadequate reasoning. The original appeals had been dismissed by Immigration Judge Trotter in May 2007.