MG (Iran) v Secretary of State for the Home Department

In an asylum appeal, the Court of Appeal will rarely interfere with findings of fact. An appellant must ordinarily show that no reasonable tribunal could have reached the challenged conclusions. A tribunal need not examine every speculative explanation advanced for an event, or give separate reasons for rejecting each one, where its determination, read as a whole, addresses the material issues and gives sufficient reasons. A judgment may be imperfectly expressed yet lawful if its reasoning adequately supports the findings. An appeal that merely recasts disagreement with adverse factual findings as an error of law should be dismissed.

An Iranian citizen sought asylum, claiming that the authorities knew of his adulterous relationship with the daughter of a prominent businessman and that he faced persecution on return. The Secretary of State rejected the claim, and the matter proceeded through the tribunal system.

Following a direction for redetermination, the Upper Tribunal (Asylum and Immigration Chamber), in a decision dated 10 March 2011, rejected the appellant’s account. Permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal was granted on the narrow issue of whether a business partner might have discovered the relationship through the appellant’s telephone. The central issue was whether the Upper Tribunal had failed to address that explanation and had thereby made an error of law.

1. Appeal dismissed. Lady Justice Hallett delivered the principal judgment. Lord Justice Moore-Bick and Lord Neuberger agreed.
2. The Upper Tribunal had to determine four linked questions: whether the business partner discovered the woman’s identity; whether he understood that she was the appellant’s lover; whether he alerted the authorities and caused a raid; and whether the appellant would be of interest to the authorities and at real risk on return. Reading the determination as a whole, the tribunal rejected the appellant’s account at every stage and gave adequate reasons for its conclusions ([10]–[13]).
3. A tribunal is not required to consider every possible method by which an event might have occurred, nor to give separate reasons for rejecting each possibility. That is particularly so where the explanations are highly speculative and were not the appellant’s case. The failure expressly to address the suggested telephone explanation therefore did not invalidate the determination ([14]).
4. The appellate court’s power to interfere with findings of fact is very limited. An appeal normally requires a showing that no reasonable tribunal could have reached the findings made. Although the Upper Tribunal’s reasoning could have been expressed more clearly and fully, it was sufficiently clear and complete to justify the conclusions and disclosed no error of law ([17]).
5. The order was that the appeal be dismissed.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): in [2012] EWCA Civ 441, dismissed the appeal from the Upper Tribunal.
• Upper Tribunal (Asylum and Immigration Chamber): decision dated 10 March 2011, appeal no AA/03644/2009, dismissed the appellant’s appeal following redetermination.
• Earlier tribunal proceedings: a direction preserved the finding that the appellant had been involved in a relationship with a married woman and required further findings on discovery, consequences and risk on return.