ASA v The Secretary of State for the Home Department

In assessing whether a person is a Somali national of Bajuni origin, decision-makers must adopt a holistic approach. Relevant matters include knowledge of life in Somalia, Somali and Bajuni, with the weight given to each depending on the person’s history and characteristics. No single factor is decisive.

Expert linguistic evidence should analyse morphology, syntax, phonology and vocabulary. It should, where possible, compare the person’s speech with Bajuni speakers of a similar age. The decline of distinctive Bajuni features, particularly among younger speakers, means that limited Bajuni vocabulary or phonology does not necessarily undermine the claim. Sprakab reports must explain their methodology and comparator data, and their conclusions must be evaluated with the other evidence.

The appellant claimed to be a Somali national of Bajuni origin from Chula Island and at risk on return. The Secretary of State rejected that account, relying principally on a Sprakab report which assessed him as a Swahili speaker from Tanzania. The appellant relied on evidence from Professor Nurse concerning Bajuni linguistics and the changing character of the language.

The First-tier Tribunal dismissed the appeal. The Upper Tribunal set that decision aside for material error of law and reheard the case. The issues included the proper treatment of Sprakab evidence, the relevance of linguistic and cultural knowledge, and whether the existing country guidance should be revised.

1. Country guidance. The guidance in AJH (Somalia) CG [2003] UKIAT 94, also reported as SA & Others (Minority group, Swahili speakers), was no longer to be followed. The substituted guidance required a holistic assessment of knowledge of life in Somalia, Somali and Bajuni. The importance of Somali and Bajuni varied with personal history, age, family history and residence.
2. Linguistic evidence. Bajuni was a dialect of Swahili and its distinctive features had declined, especially among younger speakers. A person might therefore speak Swahili with only limited Bajuni vocabulary, phonology or other features. The absence of Bajuni features did not necessarily show that the person was not Bajuni.
3. Expert methodology. A linguistic report had to identify the relevant linguistic features and explain the basis of the comparison. Sprakab’s assessment was of language use, not citizenship or domicile. Its utility was limited where it drew an unexplained distinction between Swahili and Bajuni, relied on an unclear comparator, or failed to account for migration and language change.
4. Application. The appellant had shown some knowledge of Chula and Bajuni customs, but his evidence about his family, clan identity and background was materially inconsistent and evasive. The Tribunal rejected his claim to be Bajuni, although it accepted that he was Somali and had some connection with Chula. Applying the country guidance concerning return to Mogadishu, he had not shown a real risk of persecution or treatment contrary to article 3.
5. The First-tier Tribunal’s decision involved an error of law and was set aside. The appeal was remade and dismissed on all grounds. An anonymity order was maintained.

1. Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber): The First-tier Tribunal’s decision dismissing the appeal was set aside for material error of law. The Upper Tribunal reheard the case, issued revised country guidance and dismissed the appeal on all grounds.