Ali Abdulrasul Hussein v The Secretary of State for the Home Department

A genuine, unaltered passport apparently issued by a state to its holder is strong evidence that the holder is that state’s national. In an asylum claim, the claimant bears the burden of proving the contrary. There is no presumption that a nationality held at birth continues where evidence indicates a different nationality.

Foreign nationality law is a question of fact. It must be proved by expert evidence directed to the issue, rather than by unsupported reliance on foreign statutes. An adult child’s dependency does not itself determine an ECHR article 8 claim. The decisive question is whether removal is proportionate under article 8(2).

The First-tier Tribunal dismissed the asylum appeals of a father and his adult son. It rejected material parts of the father’s account, found him to be a Tanzanian national, and concluded that he faced no risk in Tanzania. The father had travelled on a Tanzanian passport which he alleged had been fraudulently obtained.

The First-tier Tribunal also dismissed the son’s human-rights appeal. It found no dependency beyond ordinary adult family ties and held that his return to Kenya would be proportionate. Permission to appeal was granted to the father. It was initially refused to the son, but the Upper Tribunal considered his application and appeal.

The central issues were whether the father had rebutted the evidential effect of his Tanzanian passport and whether the son’s removal would be disproportionate under article 8.

1. Both appeals were dismissed. The First-tier Tribunal’s conclusion that the father was a Tanzanian national was one it was bound to reach on the evidence. Any error in its reasoning was immaterial.

2. Foreign law, including nationality law, is a matter of evidence. A party cannot establish its content merely by producing foreign legislation and asserting that it is exhaustive. Expert evidence must address the particular legal question. The father supplied no such evidence concerning Somali, Kenyan, or Tanzanian law.

3. There is no presumption that nationality acquired at birth continues. Where evidence indicates another nationality, nationality must be determined on the evidence. In a refugee claim, the claimant must establish nationality and a well-founded fear of persecution in every country of nationality.

4. A genuine passport apparently issued by a state to the named holder is clear evidence of that holder’s nationality. The holder must substantiate any assertion that it was issued merely as a passport of convenience. The father’s Tanzanian passport had been repeatedly used and scrutinised, and there was no reliable evidence that it was forged, altered, or improperly issued. He therefore had to be treated as Tanzanian and had no well-founded fear of persecution there.

5. The son may have been dependent on his parents, so the First-tier Tribunal’s contrary finding could be technically erroneous. That did not affect the result. The relevant inquiry was proportionality under paragraph 2 of article 8. The family could live together outside the United Kingdom, the son could return to Kenya, and there was no evidence of a substantial obstacle or UK connection making removal disproportionate.

6. The anonymity order was discharged. The adults’ names could be published in reports of the proceedings.

• Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber): dismissed the father’s appeal and, having granted the son permission solely in light of the respondent’s concession, dismissed the son’s appeal.
• First-tier Tribunal: dismissed both asylum appeals and the son’s article 8 appeal. Permission to appeal was granted to the father and refused to the son.