MK (Afghanistan) v The Secretary of State for the Home Department

When reviewing an asylum determination, an appellate court must read the first-instance decision fairly and as a whole. A judge need not address every strand of a claimed risk separately if the decision shows that the issue was understood and gives justifiable reasons for the conclusion. General evidence concerning a risk profile does not establish an individual risk without evidence connecting the claimant to that profile. The absence of adverse attention over a material period may be relevant to future risk. An internal-relocation finding will stand where the first-instance tribunal addressed and rejected the objections raised and concluded that relocation would be reasonable and not unduly harsh.

MK, an Afghan national, claimed asylum after stating that Taliban members had abducted his father, a former police officer, and injured him during the abduction. The First-tier Tribunal accepted the account of the abduction but rejected the claimed future risk of retaliation or forced recruitment and concluded that relocation to Kabul would be reasonable. The Upper Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding no material error of law. MK appealed to the Court of Appeal, arguing that the First-tier Tribunal had failed to address the retaliation risk, the risk in Kabul, and the significance of his loss of contact with family. The central issues were whether the reasoning was legally adequate and whether the internal-relocation conclusion could stand.

Appeal dismissed. The Court unanimously held that the First-tier Tribunal had not failed to address the risk to MK on return.

1. Adequacy of reasoning. The First-tier Tribunal was aware that MK relied on his father’s former police employment and abduction. Its references to the claimed risk profile, the general allegation of concern, the absence of recruitment attempts between 2010 and 2012, and its conclusion that a future risk was not reasonably likely were properly read as addressing the general risk, including retaliation. The tribunal could have given more detail, but its reasoning was sufficient and supported by justifiable grounds.
2. Evidence of individual risk. The evidence relied on concerning attacks against Afghan security forces and their family members did not specifically establish a risk to MK. It was unclear whether his father belonged to the relevant police category, and the necessary definitions and supporting background evidence had not been provided. The First-tier Tribunal was entitled to find that the material did not make out the retaliation case.
3. Past absence of adverse attention. The absence of retaliation, recruitment, or other adverse attention to MK or his family during the intervening period was a relevant consideration in assessing the likelihood of future risk. The significance of that evidence was not displaced merely because MK had grown older.
4. Internal relocation. Even assuming a risk in MK’s home village, there was no proper basis to challenge the finding that Kabul was a safe haven and that relocation would be reasonable and not unduly harsh. The First-tier Tribunal addressed the objections based on loss of contact with MK’s mother and the possibility that she had moved, and rejected them in light of its findings concerning his mother and other relatives in Kabul.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division). On 15 February 2017, the Court dismissed MK’s appeal from the Upper Tribunal: [2017] EWCA Civ 72.
2. Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber). On 18 September 2014, Deputy Upper Tribunal Judge Plimmer dismissed MK’s appeal from the First-tier Tribunal.
3. First-tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber). On 27 June 2014, Judge Doran dismissed MK’s appeal against the Secretary of State’s refusal of asylum.