SP (Afghanistan) & Anor v Secretary of State for the Home Department

Permission to appeal should be refused where the tribunal’s findings disclose no arguable risk under Article 15C of the qualification directive. Findings that claimants can return to family members living safely in Afghanistan, together with rejection of the asserted source of danger, may establish that there is no enhanced-risk category or material risk on return. A tribunal need not separately address every connected allegation where its reasons for rejecting the central account necessarily dispose of the related evidence. Here, rejection of the evidence that an older brother worked for the US military also rejected, with adequate reasons, the linked evidence of threats by the Taliban and Hizb-I-Islami.

SP and DP, Afghan brothers aged 18 and 13 respectively, claimed asylum on the basis that their elder brother’s work as an interpreter for the US military had led to threats from the Taliban and Hizb-I-Islami. The Secretary of State rejected their claims, but granted temporary leave to remain.

An Asylum and Immigration Tribunal panel dismissed their appeals after rejecting the account of the elder brother’s activities and concluding that the appellants could return safely to their mother and maternal uncle. On reconsideration, Senior Immigration Judge Freeman found no error of law and upheld the decision. The appellants sought permission to appeal on grounds concerning the scope of the appeal under section 83 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, humanitarian protection under Article 15C of the qualification directive (2004/83/EC), risk to an unaccompanied minor, and the adequacy of the reasons for rejecting the claimed threats.

Applications refused. Lord Justice Jackson found no error of law in the Senior Immigration Judge’s decision upholding the AIT panel’s conclusions.

1. Humanitarian protection. The appellants relied on [2010] EWCA Civ 696 to argue that the appeal should not have been treated as confined to asylum and that humanitarian protection should also have been considered. The argument, based on Article 15C of the qualification directive (2004/83/EC), depended on the appellants falling within an enhanced-risk category identified in GS (Afghanistan). On the panel’s findings, they did not. Their mother and maternal uncle were living safely in Afghanistan, had received no threats, and the account of the elder brother’s activities had been rejected.
2. Risk on return. The court held that the panel and the Senior Immigration Judge were entitled to conclude that there was no material risk on return as unaccompanied minors. The younger appellant’s proposed case concerning forcible recruitment by the Taliban therefore disclosed no error of law.
3. Adequacy of reasons. The panel’s rejection of the evidence that the elder brother worked for the US military provided proper reasons for rejecting the linked assertions that he had received threats from the Taliban and Hizb-I-Islami. The two aspects of the account were inextricably linked, so separate reasons for the threat evidence were unnecessary.

The application for permission to appeal was refused, and the formal order was that the applications be refused.

1. Asylum and Immigration Tribunal. A panel comprising Designated Immigration Judge Coates and Immigration Judge Coker dismissed the appellants’ asylum appeals.
2. Reconsideration. Following an order for reconsideration by HHJ McKenna, Senior Immigration Judge Freeman found no error of law and upheld the panel’s decision.
3. Court of Appeal (Civil Division). Permission to appeal was refused.