DT (Afghanistan) v Secretary of State for the Home Department

In an asylum appeal involving internal relocation, a tribunal may find that a claimant can live safely in a proposed place of return after assessing country evidence, the claimant’s personal circumstances and the feared group’s likely interest and capacity to pursue him. The tribunal need not rehearse every item of evidence in detail. Failure to refer expressly to particular documents does not establish an error of law where the decision shows that the tribunal understood the case, considered the material country evidence and addressed the relevant circumstances. A later tribunal does not depart from preserved first-instance findings merely because it resolves an evidential issue and reaches the same essential conclusion on safety in the proposed place of relocation.

DT (Afghanistan) v Secretary of State for the Home Department concerned an Afghan national who claimed asylum and humanitarian protection on the basis of threats from the Taliban and Hezb-i-Islami. The First-tier Tribunal accepted much of his account but found that he could safely relocate to Kabul and dismissed his appeal.

The Upper Tribunal found an error of law, set aside the First-tier Tribunal’s decision and re-made it. It rejected a further threatening letter as a forgery and concluded that the Taliban would not pursue the appellant in Kabul. The central issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the Upper Tribunal had departed from preserved findings or failed to consider the threatening letters, the appellant’s former affiliations and employment, and evidence concerning the Taliban’s ability to strike targets in Kabul.

The Court of Appeal, in a judgment delivered by Lord Justice Moore-Bick and agreed with by Lord Justice McFarlane and Mrs Justice Proudman, unanimously dismissed the appeal.

1. The First-tier Tribunal had distinguished between the risk faced in the appellant’s home province and the risk in Kabul. Its conclusion that he could return safely depended on internal relocation to Kabul. The Upper Tribunal’s decision was therefore essentially to the same effect and did not constitute a departure from the preserved findings.
2. The relevant inquiry was whether the appellant could live safely in Kabul in light of the country evidence and all material aspects of his personal circumstances, including his former contacts with the insurgents, the threatening letters and his employment with AEADC.
3. The Upper Tribunal had considered the evidence concerning the Taliban’s ability to strike in Kabul. It had also referred to the letters and understood the appellant’s case, including his former membership of Hezb-i-Islami and refusal to rejoin. It was not necessary to revisit the letters in detail because the First-tier Tribunal’s findings had been preserved.
4. A failure to mention each item of evidence expressly does not establish an error of law where the tribunal’s reasoning demonstrates that the evidence and the substance of the case were understood and considered. There was no independent evidence that a former low-level member of an insurgent group who had refused renewed support faced an increased risk of attack.
5. The Upper Tribunal was entitled to regard the appellant as a low-level collaborator and to conclude that the Taliban, whose limited resources were generally directed towards higher-profile targets and whose ability to track individuals in Kabul was limited, would not devote resources to finding him. No error of law having been shown, the appeal was dismissed.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Dismissed the appeal against the Upper Tribunal’s decision: [2014] EWCA Civ 259.
2. Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber): Found an error of law, set aside the First-tier Tribunal’s decision, re-made the decision and dismissed the appeal.
3. First-tier Tribunal: Accepted substantial parts of the appellant’s account but found that he could safely relocate to Kabul and dismissed his appeal against the refusal of asylum and humanitarian protection.