SN (Pakistan) v Secretary of State for the Home Department

In an asylum appeal, a tribunal must give adequate reasons for its treatment of material expert evidence. It must address the principal points, explain how the evidence bears on the individual risk, and distinguish conduct falling below the threshold of persecution or inhuman or degrading treatment from discrimination. A finding that there is no realistic risk of feared circumstances arising requires a legally sufficient evidential basis. An error under Asylum and Immigration Act 2004, s 8(5), is immaterial where the credibility findings affected do not bear on the protection claim.

A Pakistani national appealed against Senior Immigration Judge Jordan’s reconsideration decision, which upheld Immigration Judge Walters’s rejection of her asylum, humanitarian protection and human rights claims. She claimed that, as a Shia Muslim returning as a single mother with a child whose birth certificate named no father, she faced persecution or ill-treatment because she would be perceived as having had sex outside marriage. The appeal concerned the adequacy of the judges’ reasoning, their treatment of expert evidence, the risk that her circumstances would become known, and possible internal relocation.

The appeal was allowed. The reconsideration decision was set aside and the case was remitted for a complete rehearing before a different Senior Immigration Judge.

1. Any error in the treatment of delayed claims under section 8(5) of the Asylum and Immigration Act 2004 was immaterial. The adverse credibility findings concerned the alleged temporary marriage and the appellant’s belief that the man would marry her. Neither finding affected the assessment of the risks she faced on return.
2. The principal error was the inadequate reasoning of Immigration Judge Walters. Professor Menski had provided a detailed report addressing the position of a single woman with a child born outside marriage, temporary Shia marriage, protection by the authorities, employment, education, and relocation. The judge referred to the report briefly but failed to engage with its principal points or explain how they affected the risk assessment.
3. The issue was not simply the weight to be given to the expert evidence. The question was whether the original judge had conducted an appropriate reasoning process at all. The conclusion that there was no real risk that the true position would become known lacked an adequate evidential and analytical basis.
4. Senior Immigration Judge Jordan did not cure the defect. He proceeded on an assumption that there had been a valid twelve-month marriage, contrary to the original factual finding and without hearing fresh evidence. His analysis also risked approaching the issue through the perspective of a person living in England rather than in Pakistan.
5. On rehearing, the tribunal had to assess whether the appellant might be perceived and treated as an immoral woman who had had a sexual relationship outside marriage. It had to identify which alleged consequences crossed the threshold between discrimination and persecution, or inhuman or degrading treatment. The realistic country-specific risks, including the relevance of expert and country evidence, required full reconsideration.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): In [2009] EWCA Civ 181, the appeal was allowed. The Senior Immigration Judge’s reconsideration decision was set aside and the matter was remitted for a complete rehearing before a different Senior Immigration Judge.
• Asylum and Immigration Tribunal: Senior Immigration Judge Jordan upheld Immigration Judge Walters’s decision, which had rejected the asylum, humanitarian protection and human rights appeals.