ZY (China) v Secretary of State For the Home Department

Permission for a second appeal requires an important point of principle or practice, or another compelling reason. In assessing whether refusal to adjourn proceedings for further evidence was unfair, the court must consider fairness to both parties. A represented party is ordinarily expected to present the complete case at the proper procedural stage. Psychiatric evidence showing only an unspecified reaction to severe stress does not materially assist credibility unless it explains impaired cognition, memory or the ability to give evidence. Specialist tribunals retain the fact-finding function, and appellate courts must guard against repeated attempts to recast an unsuccessful case.

The applicant entered the United Kingdom in April 2011 and claimed asylum. The First-tier Tribunal dismissed his appeal against refusal of his asylum claim. Permission to appeal was granted on the issue whether the tribunal should have adjourned to obtain psychiatric evidence. The Upper Tribunal considered the report and dismissed the appeal, finding no unfairness and no material effect on the credibility findings. Permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal was refused by the Upper Tribunal and by Sir Richard Buxton on the papers. The applicant renewed the application for permission to bring a second appeal. The central issue was whether the refusal to adjourn was unfair and whether the case disclosed an important point of principle or practice, or another compelling reason.

Application refused.

1. Because this was an application for permission to bring a second appeal, the applicant had to show an important point of principle or practice, or another compelling reason why the appeal should be heard.
2. The relevant guidance was the fairness test identified in SH (Afghanistan) v The Secretary of State [2011] EWCA Civ 1284. Fairness applies from the standpoint of both parties. Legally represented parties must ordinarily bring their complete case at the appropriate stage, namely before the First-tier Tribunal or, where appropriate, on appeal to the Upper Tribunal.
3. The First-tier Tribunal had been entitled to refuse a further adjournment. Earlier applications had failed, more than six months had elapsed between the asylum claim and hearing, and the applicant had ample opportunity to obtain evidence. The Upper Tribunal subsequently considered the psychiatric report on the basis advanced for its relevance, namely whether the applicant’s cognitive function, memory or ability to give evidence was impaired.
4. A diagnosis of a reaction to severe stress of unspecified origin was consistent with the applicant’s account but equally consistent with many other causes. It did not explain the discrepancies identified by the First-tier Tribunal or materially assist the assessment of credibility.
5. The Immigration and Asylum Chamber is a specialist fact-finding tribunal. The Court of Appeal could not substitute its own factual assessment and had to guard against an endless iteration of appeals based on a newly reformulated argument. The fairness threshold was not met, and the psychiatric evidence did not provide a compelling reason for a further appeal. Order: application refused.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division) — Renewed application for permission to bring a second appeal refused.
2. Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) — Appeal dismissed after considering the psychiatric evidence and finding no unfairness in the refusal to adjourn.
3. First-tier Tribunal — Appeal against refusal of the asylum claim dismissed.