Banaga, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department

In assessing further submissions in an asylum case, the Secretary of State may reach a negative conclusion where the evidence is materially inconsistent, lacks adequate detail, and does not establish a real risk on return. A decision is not unlawful merely because it evaluates the evidential strength of a further claim rather than leaving every issue to a future immigration judge, provided the assessment is rational and supported by adequate reasons. Evidence that members of a political organisation may face persecution does not assist unless the claimant establishes that he is a member or has attracted the adverse attention of the relevant authorities.

The claimant, a Sudanese national, sought renewed permission to apply for judicial review of decisions refusing to accept further submissions concerning his alleged political activity with the Justice for Equality Movement. Earlier asylum findings had rejected his account of persecution and found his overall credibility to be nil. The Secretary of State considered later statements and supporting letters but identified inconsistencies about the timing, nature and extent of the claimant’s activities, and concluded that he had not shown that the Sudanese authorities knew of him or that he had a significant role in the organisation.

The central issues were whether the Secretary of State had properly considered the evidence and whether the further submissions disclosed a realistic prospect of success.

1. Application refused. The Secretary of State had fully considered the claimant’s further submissions and had given rational and cogent reasons for rejecting them.
2. The earlier tribunal findings were clear. The tribunal had rejected the claimant’s account of persecution and had placed no reliance on his story. It was unnecessary for the tribunal to decide whether he had previously belonged to the Muslim Brotherhood, because the alleged risk arising from that history was rejected.
3. The Secretary of State was entitled to identify the absence of earlier references to the alleged JEM activities, the limited evidence of attendance at demonstrations, inconsistencies between the claimant’s statements and the supporting letters, and the failure to show that the Sudanese authorities were aware of his presence or activities.
4. The fact that politically active JEM members might face persecution in Sudan did not assist the claimant. The Secretary of State had rationally concluded that the evidence did not establish that he was a JEM member, had the asserted profile, or had come to the attention of the Sudanese authorities.
5. The argument based on RT (Zimbabwe), namely that a person would not be expected to lie on return, could not assist because it depended on the unestablished factual premise that the claimant was an active JEM member. Further representations repeating the same points therefore added nothing material to the Secretary of State’s decision.

Permission to apply for judicial review was refused on 5 December 2011 by His Honour Judge David Pearl sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge. The claimant renewed the application. The Administrative Court refused the renewed application.