NP (Sri Lanka) v The Secretary Of State For The Home Department

In an asylum appeal, documentary evidence must be assessed with the evidence as a whole and in the round. The absence of investigation or challenge by the Secretary of State does not give documents enhanced weight or create a presumption in the claimant’s favour. Where the claimant’s account is inherently implausible, a tribunal may conclude that supporting documents do not restore credibility, even if they have not been individually disproved. A separate finding on every document is unnecessary where the decision demonstrates that the evidence was considered globally. The burden remains on the claimant, applying the lower standard of proof.

The applicant, a Sri Lankan national, claimed asylum on the basis that he had been detained and tortured after explosives were found in a vehicle connected with him. His appeal was dismissed by the First-tier Tribunal. The Upper Tribunal set that decision aside for error of law, reheard the matter, and dismissed the appeal on all grounds.

The applicant sought permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal, alleging procedural unfairness and an erroneous approach to documentary evidence and credibility. After receipt of the hearing transcript, only the question whether the Upper Tribunal had materially erred in its treatment of the documents remained.

The Court of Appeal, in the judgment of Fulford LJ with which Moore-Bick LJ agreed, dismissed the application for leave to appeal.

1. Global assessment of evidence. The Upper Tribunal judge had not rejected the applicant’s account without considering the documents. She first analysed the credibility concerns and then considered the documentary material, before assessing the evidence globally. It was open to her to conclude that the account was so inherently unbelievable that the documents did not lend it credibility. In those circumstances, separate findings on every document were not required.
2. Investigation of documents. The Court applied the approach in Tanveer Ahmed [2002] Imm AR 318. A material document must be assessed like any other evidence and not in isolation. There is no general obligation on the Home Office to make detailed enquiries about documents produced by an asylum claimant. Unless the facts provide a particular reason for investigation, a failure to make enquiries does not create a presumption in favour of the claimant or against the Home Office.
3. Burden and appellate review. The applicant retained the burden of establishing the claim, applying the lower standard of proof. The complaints about the weight given to the evidence were matters for the Upper Tribunal’s assessment. The judge had all relevant evidence in mind and her conclusion was sustainable.
4. The alleged procedural unfairness and error of law were not established. The application for leave to appeal was dismissed.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): dismissed the application for leave to appeal under [2015] EWCA Civ 975.
• Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber): after setting aside the First-tier Tribunal decision for error of law, Upper Tribunal Judge Martin reheard the case and dismissed the appeal on all grounds on 17 December 2013. Permission to appeal was refused on 14 April 2014.
• First-tier Tribunal: Immigration Judge Jhirad dismissed the appeal on asylum, humanitarian protection and human rights grounds on 1 August 2011.