JN (Cameroon) v Secretary of State for the Home Department

On an appeal from a first-stage reconsideration, the question is whether the original immigration judge made an error of law, not whether another tribunal would reach different factual findings. A tribunal may examine an associated claim of human-rights activity where it forms part of the explanation for the alleged persecution, even if it is not itself the basis of the feared persecution. Documents must be assessed with all the evidence in the round, and apparently authentic documents may be rejected where the account is fabricated and evidence supports procurement by bribery: [2002] UKIAT 00439. An overemphatic passage or failure expressly to address evidence is not necessarily a material error where the reasoning is cumulative and the evidence could not reasonably have affected the outcome.

The appellant, a Cameroonian national, claimed asylum on the basis that he feared persecution following his escape from prison and an accusation by a village chief that he had plotted to kill the president. Immigration Judge MacDonald dismissed the appeal, finding the account fabricated. The High Court ordered reconsideration. Senior Immigration Judge Eshun found no error of law and affirmed the decision at the first-stage reconsideration hearing.

Before the Court of Appeal, the appellant challenged the treatment of the alleged human-rights activity, apparently authentic certificates concerning his family, and objective evidence about the power of village chiefs. The central issue was whether the immigration judge’s determination disclosed a material error of law.

1. Appeal dismissed. Dyson LJ, with Longmore LJ agreeing, held that the relevant question was whether Immigration Judge MacDonald’s determination contained an error of law. The appeal was not an opportunity to revisit the merits or substitute different factual findings.
2. The immigration judge had understood that the appellant’s claimed fear arose from the village chief’s alleged retaliation, rather than from membership of a human-rights organisation. Nevertheless, the claimed human-rights activity was relevant to the credibility of the account because it formed part of the explanation for the alleged conflict with the chief. The first ground therefore failed.
3. The immigration judge was entitled to apply the approach in Tanveer Ahmed [2002] UKIAT 00439. The documents had to be assessed in the round. Reading paragraphs 78 and 79 together, the immigration judge had rejected the appellant’s account as fabricated and was entitled not to rely on apparently authentic certificates. Evidence of widespread corruption supported the inference that the documents might have been procured by bribery.
4. The criticism of the reasoning in paragraph 68 did not establish an error of law. That passage was one part of cumulative reasoning, while the silence of the ODH letter and the evidence concerning the alleged imprisonment were regarded as particularly significant. The determination could be criticised as diffuse and overenthusiastic, but its cumulative reasoning was not perverse.
5. Evidence that a chief exercised power within his village or tribal area did not establish that he could procure the appellant’s arrest and imprisonment by state authorities in Douala. The incident involving a pastor did not demonstrate influence over police or other state authorities outside the chief’s tribal area. The immigration judge was entitled to conclude that the article could not reasonably have affected the outcome, even though it might have been addressed expressly.
6. Sedley LJ agreed with the disposition but expressed reservations. He considered that the Senior Immigration Judge had exceeded her limited remit by interpolating factual findings instead of deciding whether the immigration judge had made a material error of law. Those reservations did not alter the majority’s conclusion. Order: application granted; appeal dismissed.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Permission to appeal was granted on renewal. The appeal was dismissed: [2009] EWCA Civ 241.
2. High Court: An order was made for reconsideration of the immigration judge’s decision.
3. Asylum and Immigration Tribunal: Immigration Judge MacDonald dismissed the asylum appeal. On first-stage reconsideration, Senior Immigration Judge Eshun found no error of law and affirmed the decision.