AS (Iran) v Secretary of State for the Home Department

On an application for permission to appeal in an asylum case, a real prospect of success may arise where the tribunal arguably failed to address whether established domestic abuse and resulting psychiatric injury engaged membership of a particular social group. The issue should be assessed by reference to innate characteristics and the adequacy of protection in the country of return. Permission should not be confined to one ground where the wider circumstances may be relevant to the appeal.

An Iranian national sought permission to appeal the Upper Tribunal’s determination of Deputy Judge Manuell dated 11 April 2014, which upheld a First-tier Tribunal determination by Judge Beg dated 15 January 2014. The proposed grounds concerned Convention grounds, sur place political activity, medical evidence and an alleged Article 3 suicide risk. The Upper Tribunal’s reasons were so succinct that it was unclear whether any error of law had been considered. The central issue was whether the First-tier Tribunal had arguably erred in failing to treat a woman subjected to domestic abuse as a member of a particular social group, having regard to the evidence of psychiatric injury and the lack of sufficient protection in Iran.

Permission to appeal was granted. The matter was directed to proceed before a full court of three judges, including an immigration specialist. The court made no final determination of the proposed grounds.

1. The Upper Tribunal’s determination was too succinct to show whether any alleged error of law had been considered. It was therefore necessary to examine the First-tier Tribunal’s detailed findings and the errors said to arise from them.
2. The First-tier Tribunal had considered the appellant’s religion, political activity and opinions, associations, alleged illegal exit and membership of a particular social group. Its factual findings were not themselves likely to be challenged successfully.
3. There was, however, a real prospect of success in the argument that the First-tier Tribunal had erred in law in concluding that the appellant was not a member of a particular social group. The argument relied on findings of prolonged domestic abuse, matrimonial rape and forced abortion, together with PTSD and severe depression. It also relied on the appellant’s innate characteristics and the absence of sufficient protection in Iran, having regard to the Home Office guidance and Article 9(1)f of the Qualification Directive.
4. The court expressed no view on the other grounds. Permission was not limited because the wider circumstances in which the appellant had left Iran for the second time could be relevant to the determination of the appeal.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division) granted permission to appeal and directed a full hearing before three judges: [2015] EWCA Civ 824.
• Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Deputy Judge Manuell’s determination dated 11 April 2014 upheld the First-tier Tribunal’s decision.
• First-tier Tribunal Judge Beg’s determination dated 15 January 2014 rejected the appellant’s protection claims, including membership of a particular social group.