NA v The Secretary of State for the Home Department

Rule 45 of the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal (Procedure) Rules 2005 gives the First-tier Tribunal discretionary procedural case-management powers. It does not impose a duty to gather evidence or to require the Secretary of State to verify documents produced by an asylum claimant.

Any direction requiring a party to obtain or validate evidence must be exercised sparingly, in a fact-sensitive manner, and consistently with the tribunal’s independent and impartial adjudicative role. An effective remedy under EU law does not require an appellate tribunal to conduct proactive investigations merely because further or stronger evidence might have been available. The Tanveer Ahmed principles remain applicable to the assessment of documentary reliability in asylum and human-rights appeals.

The appellant, an Iranian Kurd, appealed against the First-tier Tribunal’s dismissal of his asylum, human-rights and humanitarian-protection appeal. The First-tier Tribunal had rejected his account of political interest by the Iranian authorities and found the documents relied upon unreliable. It also found that he would not face a real risk on return.

Permission to appeal was granted on the arguable basis that the First-tier Tribunal had failed properly to engage with Singh and Others v Belgium [Application number 33210/11]. Before the Upper Tribunal, the appellant contended that the First-tier Tribunal should itself have investigated the authenticity of his Iranian documents, or directed the Secretary of State to do so, under rule 45 and EU effective-remedy provisions.

1. Appeal dismissed. The First-tier Tribunal made no error of law by declining to investigate the documents itself or to direct the Secretary of State to undertake the proposed verification exercise.

2. Rule 45 of the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal (Procedure) Rules 2005 confers discretionary directions powers concerning procedure and preparation for a hearing. It empowers directions to parties, but gives no general evidence-gathering function or duty to the tribunal. A direction to obtain or validate evidence must be exercised sparingly and in a fact-sensitive way. The tribunal must preserve its independence, impartiality and neutrality: [14]–[15].

3. Singh and Others v Belgium concerned deficiencies in Belgian administrative processes and the effectiveness of remedies under articles 3 and 13 of the Convention. It did not transfer to an independent judicial appellate tribunal a duty to conduct proactive inquiries into an asylum claimant’s documents: [13]–[15].

4. Article 47 of the Charter and article 39(1) of the Procedures Directive applied in the asylum appeal, but the remedy was effective. The appellant had access to a competent decision-maker, his claim was examined, and he was protected from removal during the process. Those provisions did not expressly or impliedly require the First-tier Tribunal to gather evidence, and such a role would compromise its independence and impartiality: [17]–[20].

5. The Tribunal reaffirmed MJ (Singh v Belgium: Tanveer Ahmed unaffected) Afghanistan [2013] UKUT 254 (IAC). The claimant must establish that a document is reliable, and its reliability must be assessed with all the evidence in the round. The Tanveer Ahmed principles remain applicable: [21].

• Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber): appeal dismissed; the First-tier Tribunal’s decision was affirmed.
• First-tier Tribunal: dismissed the appellant’s asylum, human-rights and humanitarian-protection appeal on all grounds.