FT (Ivory Coast) v The Secretary of State for the Home Department

Permission for a second appeal should be refused where the proposed appeal identifies no error of law and raises no important question of principle or practice or other compelling reason for a further hearing. A challenge which merely seeks to revisit the Upper Tribunal’s evaluation of documentary and oral evidence does not satisfy that threshold unless it identifies an error of law. The Court of Appeal will not grant permission simply because the applicant disagrees with the tribunal’s credibility assessment.

FT appealed against the refusal of his asylum claim, alleging political activity in Ivory Coast and a risk on return. The Upper Tribunal set aside the First-tier Tribunal’s decision with the Secretary of State’s consent and remade the decision. It dismissed the appeal after finding that internet newspaper articles relied on by FT were highly unreliable and that his evidence about his political history was materially contradictory. A renewed application for permission to appeal came before the Court of Appeal after Underhill LJ had refused permission on the papers on 11 July 2014. The central question was whether the proposed second appeal disclosed an error of law, an important question of principle or practice, or another compelling reason for a further hearing.

Lord Justice Lewison refused the renewed application for permission to appeal.

1. Evaluation of evidence. The Upper Tribunal’s dismissal turned entirely on its evaluation of the evidence. It had identified serious reliability problems in the purported newspaper articles, including material chronological impossibilities and inconsistencies concerning FT’s father. It also found that FT knew almost nothing about the political party for which he claimed to have campaigned and had given wildly contradictory evidence about his history.
2. Medical evidence. The Upper Tribunal accepted that trauma could cloud FT’s memory. It was nevertheless entitled to conclude that this did not explain his inability to provide basic information which he would reasonably have been expected to know if his account were true.
3. Permission threshold. The lengthy document supporting the application identified no error of law in the Upper Tribunal’s decision. It identified no important question of principle or practice and no other compelling reason for the Court of Appeal to hear a second appeal.
4. Order. Application refused.

• First-tier Tribunal: The original decision was set aside with the Secretary of State’s consent.
• Upper Tribunal: The decision was remade and FT’s appeal against refusal of asylum was dismissed.
• Court of Appeal: Underhill LJ refused permission on the papers on 11 July 2014. On renewal, the application was refused: [2015] EWCA Civ 900.