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

An appellate tribunal does not err in law merely because it states an inference before explaining the findings supporting it. A finding that an asylum claimant travelled for economic reasons may be unnecessary where the appeal independently fails because the claimant has not shown a well-founded fear of persecution or a real risk of serious ill-treatment.

Failure to cite country guidance expressly is not material where the tribunal has considered the substance of the relevant risks, including risks arising from lack of family support, forced recruitment, blood feud, and perceived association with insurgents. Concise conclusions do not show inadequate consideration if the evidence has been examined carefully and conscientiously.

The appellant, who entered the United Kingdom from Afghanistan as a minor, claimed asylum and humanitarian protection. The Secretary of State refused his application. The First-tier Tribunal dismissed his appeal, and the Upper Tribunal dismissed his further appeal in a decision dated 28 February 2013.

Permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal was granted on two grounds: whether the Upper Tribunal had made an unsupported finding that the appellant was an economic migrant, and whether it had failed to assess the risks on return by omitting relevant evidence and failing expressly to consider AA (Unattended children) (Afghanistan) [2012] UKUT 00016 (IAC).

1. Appeal dismissed. The Upper Tribunal was entitled to infer from its accepted findings that the appellant had been sent to the United Kingdom in the hope that he would provide economic support for his family. The fact that the inference appeared before the reasons did not make the decision irrational. It was a permissible way of expressing a conclusion before explaining its evidential basis.
2. In any event, the economic-migrant finding was unnecessary. The appellant bore the burden of showing a well-founded fear of persecution or a risk of serious ill-treatment on return. The tribunal’s findings independently established that he had failed to discharge that burden. The ground could succeed only if the findings themselves were irrational, and there was no basis for that conclusion.
3. The alleged omission of AA (Unattended children) (Afghanistan) [2012] UKUT 00016 (IAC) did not establish an error of law. Its relevance lay principally in country guidance about risks to unattached children and, to a lesser extent, young adults returned without family protection or support. Similar guidance had been considered in HK & Others (minors – indiscriminate violence – forced recruitment by Taliban – contact with family members) Afghanistan CG [2010] UKUT 378 (IAC), to which the tribunal had referred.
4. The tribunal had specifically considered the appellant’s asserted risks in Kabul, including blood-feud involvement, forced recruitment into Hizb-e-Islami, treatment by the authorities because of his family background, and forced collaboration with government forces. It had also considered relevant UNHCR material. Any failure to cite AA expressly was therefore immaterial. The general level of violence was not said to engage article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights, and the tribunal’s succinct conclusions did not demonstrate a failure to consider the evidence carefully and conscientiously.

Lord Justice Lewison and the Master of the Rolls agreed with Lord Justice Moore-Bick.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Appeal dismissed. The court upheld the Upper Tribunal’s dismissal of the appellant’s appeal.
• Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber): By decision dated 28 February 2013, Upper Tribunal Judge Perkins dismissed the appeal from the First-tier Tribunal.
• First-tier Tribunal: Dismissed the appellant’s appeal against the Secretary of State’s refusal of asylum and humanitarian protection.