CY (Turkey) v Secretary of State for the Home Department

Risk on return must be assessed on the evidence as a whole and in the claimant’s relevant home area. Country-guidance risk factors are an aid to analysis, not a checklist. The absence of a detention record on a central database does not establish that relevant information is unavailable; local inquiries and records may matter. A tribunal may reject serious allegations of past detention or ill-treatment while accepting limited rough treatment. That finding does not itself establish past persecution or Article 3 ill-treatment. Objective evidence that abuse occurs in the country does not establish individual risk where the account is not credible. If the home area is safe, internal relocation does not arise.

A Turkish citizen of Kurdish ethnicity and Alevi faith claimed asylum after separating from her husband. She alleged political activity, two detentions, beatings and rape, and feared persecution or a breach of Article 3 on return. The immigration judge accepted some family harassment, low-level pro-Kurdish activity and questioning, but rejected the serious allegations of ill-treatment and found no sufficient risk on return.

The appeal was rejected by the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal. Following an order for reconsideration by Dobbs J, Senior Immigration Judge Jordan found on 2 June 2008 that there was no error of law. The central issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the risk assessment had properly addressed the relevant country-guidance factors, available official information, credibility findings and internal relocation.

1. Appeal dismissed. Elias LJ held that the immigration judge had made permissible findings of fact and had committed no error of law. Maurice Kay LJ and Mummery LJ agreed.
2. Risk assessment. The assessment of risk on return was required to be fact-sensitive and conducted in the round. The factors identified in A (Turkey) were potential and inexhaustive risk factors, not a checklist. A tribunal was not required to recite every factor separately where its reasoning showed that the material evidence had been considered. The immigration judge had addressed the appellant’s ethnicity, faith, family connections, political activity, alleged detentions, lack of passport and the relevant background evidence. [2003] UKIAT 00034
3. Information and place of risk. The absence of a record on the GBTS or GPTS system did not mean that relevant information was unavailable to the authorities. Local inquiries and information held in the claimant’s home area could be relevant. The normal focus was risk in the home area, rather than only at the airport. The immigration judge’s approach was consistent with IK (Turkey) and did not assume that no information would be available merely because it was absent from a central system. [2004] UKIAT 00312 The point was also consistent with the principle identified in SD (Turkey) v SSHD. [2007] EWCA Civ 1514
4. Past treatment and credibility. Acceptance that the appellant had been detained and treated roughly did not amount to a finding of past persecution or Article 3 ill-treatment. The immigration judge was entitled to reject the more serious parts of her account and to treat the accepted history as insufficient to establish future risk. Country evidence showing that torture or sexual assault could occur in Turkey did not require acceptance of an individual account which was found not to be credible.
5. Internal relocation. The issue did not arise because the immigration judge found that the appellant could live safely in her home area, where her mother and siblings remained. The appeal was therefore dismissed.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): After permission for a full hearing was granted, the court dismissed the appeal.
• Asylum and Immigration Tribunal: The appellant’s appeal was initially rejected. Following an order for reconsideration by Dobbs J, Senior Immigration Judge Jordan decided on 2 June 2008 that there was no error of law.
• Immigration judge: The appellant’s asylum and protection claim was rejected after findings that the serious allegations of past ill-treatment were not credible and that return to Turkey would not create a well-founded fear of persecution.