KB & Anor v The Secretary of State for the Home Department

A credibility assessment in an asylum appeal may use the indicators of sufficient detail, internal consistency, external consistency and plausibility as a structured framework. The indicators are neither exhaustive nor necessary conditions. They must not displace assessment of all the evidence in the round, the fact-sensitive nature of credibility, or the requirements of Qualification Directive 2004/83/EC and section 8 of the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc.) Act 2004.

Plausibility requires particular caution. A tribunal must avoid judging conduct solely by United Kingdom assumptions and must draw inferences rather than speculate. Where past religious persecution is established, Article 4(4) makes it a serious indication of future risk unless good reasons show that it will not recur.

The appellants, Pakistani Ahmadis, sought asylum after an alleged religiously motivated attack on the first appellant's shop, threats and earlier harassment. The respondent accepted that they were Ahmadis but contested the account principally on plausibility.

Their first appeal was dismissed by the First-tier Tribunal. That decision was set aside and remitted. A second First-tier Tribunal dismissal was also set aside for material error of law, and the Upper Tribunal re-made the decision. The central issues were the credibility and religious cause of the alleged events, future risk, and whether internal relocation was available.

1. The appeals were allowed on asylum grounds. The Tribunal accepted the appellants' core account. The respondent's challenge was confined to plausibility, having accepted sufficient detail, internal consistency and external consistency. The evidence, considered in the round, was credible.

2. The Home Office credibility indicators provide a useful structured framework. They are indicators only, not mandatory or exhaustive conditions. Their use must remain subordinate to an assessment of all evidence in the round, the individual circumstances required by Article 4 of the Qualification Directive 2004/83/EC, and the statutory direction in section 8 of the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc.) Act 2004.

3. Plausibility cannot safely be assessed by applying United Kingdom expectations to circumstances in a different social and cultural setting. It may have degrees and may point in opposing directions. Adverse findings must rest on reasonably drawn inferences, not conjecture or speculation.

4. The shop incident had to be assessed with the accumulated harassment, threats and poster campaign. The Tribunal found it reasonably likely that the adverse attention was religiously motivated. It was therefore capable of constituting persecution under Article 9 and had the required Convention reason under Article 10.

5. Past persecution engaged Article 4(4). The first appellant's active Ahmadi profile, including his roles as Musi and Quaid, gave no good reason to suppose the persecution would not recur. Applying MN and others (Ahmadis - country conditions - risk) CG [2012] UKUT 00389 (IAC), internal relocation was not reasonably available to him because of the nationwide reach of the anti-Ahmadi restrictions and risk.

• Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber): re-made the appeals after the second First-tier Tribunal decision had been set aside for material error of law, and allowed them on asylum grounds.
• First-tier Tribunal: Judge E B Grant dismissed the appeals on 13 October 2016; Upper Tribunal Judge O'Connor set that decision aside on 3 February 2017.
• First-tier Tribunal: Judge Oakley dismissed the appeals on 6 November 2015; Deputy Upper Tribunal Judge Sheridan set that decision aside for error of law on 21 March 2016 and remitted the matter.