AA (Saudi Arabia) v Secretary of State for the Home Department

In an asylum appeal, an expert report is not rendered valueless because it relies partly on the claimant’s account or contains opinions outside the expert’s field. The tribunal must separate inadmissible material from admissible evidence and evaluate the latter. Failure to engage with material expert evidence bearing on an accepted factual premise and the critical issue may constitute a material error of law. An appellate court may find an error immaterial, but should avoid resolving detailed factual questions reserved to a specialist tribunal where the outcome is not inevitable. The appropriate course is remittal for reconsideration.

The appellant claimed asylum after arriving in the United Kingdom, asserting that he was a Saudi bidoon. Immigration Judge Steer accepted that he was born in Saudi Arabia but rejected his account that he was a bidoon and dismissed the appeal. Charles J directed reconsideration because the judge might have failed to give proper reasons and to consider material matters in Dr Joffe’s expert report and the background evidence. Senior Immigration Judge Eshun upheld the dismissal, treating the accepted finding about the appellant’s birthplace as the material error and rejecting the expert report in its entirety. The appeal concerned whether the original failure to engage with the expert evidence was a material error of law requiring a further reconsideration.

Lord Justice Sedley delivered the judgment. Lord Justice Dyson and Lady Justice Smith agreed.

1. The appeal was allowed and the matter was remitted to the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal for a second-stage reconsideration.
2. The Senior Immigration Judge had misidentified the material error in the first determination. Immigration Judge Steer’s finding that the appellant was born in Saudi Arabia was based on her assessment of his evidence and did not require further justification merely because he had given a different account of his birthplace on another occasion.
3. The substantial error was the failure to engage with important parts of Dr Joffe’s report and the background material. Those matters were relevant to whether a person born in Saudi Arabia could be unregistered and to the consequences of non-registration. Once the finding about birthplace stood, the critical factual issue was whether the appellant was registered as a citizen.
4. An expert report which combines objective evidence with information obtained from the appellant remains capable of being useful expert evidence. Its weight may depend on whether the tribunal accepts the factual premises supplied by the appellant. If an expert expresses views outside the proper limits of expertise, the tribunal must separate the inadmissible material from the admissible evidence and evaluate the latter. It was therefore wrong to dismiss the report as a whole because parts of it relied on inconsistent evidence from the appellant. The criticism that Dr Joffe had shaped his report to fit assumptions was unwarranted.
5. The Court of Appeal could itself conclude that an error was immaterial, but doing so here would require an evaluation of factual detail peculiarly entrusted to the AIT. The outcome was not foregone. The AIT therefore had to reconsider the issue with proper regard to the expert evidence.
6. The court expressed the hope that the available registration-information Protocol would be used before reconsideration and disclosed to the AIT, rather than being used only after an asylum claim had failed and removal was imminent.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Appeal allowed and remitted to the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal for a second-stage reconsideration.
2. Asylum and Immigration Tribunal: Senior Immigration Judge Eshun upheld Immigration Judge Steer’s dismissal of the asylum appeal on reconsideration (AIT No: AA/05154/2008).
3. High Court: Charles J directed reconsideration because the first immigration judge might have failed to give proper reasons and to consider relevant expert and background evidence.
4. Asylum and Immigration Tribunal: Immigration Judge Steer had dismissed the asylum appeal, accepting that the appellant was born in Saudi Arabia but rejecting his claim to be a bidoon.