THTN v Secretary of State for the Home Department

In a cessation case, the decision-maker must ask whether a significant and non-temporary change means that the circumstances which caused refugee recognition have ceased to apply, and whether another basis for refugee status remains. The tribunal must assess the original basis of protection, the individual’s circumstances and current country evidence. UNHCR views require careful consideration but carry no special weight solely because of their authorship.

For an Article 3 medical-removal claim, the applicant must first adduce strong evidence of serious illness, treatment and the consequences of its loss, together with sufficient evidence to cast doubt on treatment in the receiving state. If that threshold is met, the returning state must address the resulting doubts. The cessation appeal was dismissed, but the Article 3 issue was remitted for rehearing.

The appellant, a Vietnamese national recognised as a refugee after being trafficked to the United Kingdom, was convicted of kidnapping and sentenced to 11 years and six months’ imprisonment. The Secretary of State made a deportation order, revoked her refugee status and refused her human rights claim.

The First-tier Tribunal dismissed her appeal on cessation and Article 3 grounds on 16 March 2021. The Upper Tribunal dismissed her further appeal on 28 October 2021. Before the Court of Appeal, the issues were whether the cessation decision applied the correct test and whether the tribunals had applied the correct evidential approach to the alleged lack of medical treatment in Vietnam.

The appeal was allowed in part. The challenge to cessation of refugee status failed. The Article 3 appeal succeeded and that issue was remitted to the First-tier Tribunal for rehearing alone.

1. The relevant cessation test under paragraph 339A(v) of the Immigration Rules, as explained in SSHD v MA (Somalia) [2018] EWCA Civ 994, is whether a significant and non-temporary change means that the circumstances causing refugee recognition have ceased to apply and whether there is another basis for refugee status. The First-tier Tribunal had the original decision before it, addressed the relevant circumstances and applied the correct test. Its failure to repeat the full test in its conclusion was immaterial.
2. The tribunal was entitled to rely on the CPIN as a whole without analysing every passage. A failure to mention particular evidence does not establish that it was ignored. The treatment of the UNHCR response was lawful: it was carefully considered, and the reasons for preferring more recent country evidence were explained. UNHCR views deserve respect but have no special status solely because of their authorship, as recognised in PS (Cessation Principles) Zimbabwe [2022] Imm LR 1. Nguyen [2015] UKUT 170 IAC was fact-specific and could not establish general country conditions; its marginal use did not affect the outcome.
3. In a medical-removal case, the applicant must first provide evidence of the seriousness of the illness, the treatment involved, the consequences of losing treatment and sufficient evidence to cast doubt on the availability or accessibility of treatment in the receiving state. This threshold derives from Paposhvili v Belgium [2017] Imm AR 267, as explained in AM (Zimbabwe) v SSHD [2020] UKSC 17 and Savran v Denmark [2022] Imm LR 3.
4. Only if that threshold is met must the returning state address the doubts raised and provide relevant evidence about treatment. The First-tier Tribunal asked whether the appellant had proved a serious Article 3 violation, rather than whether there were substantial grounds for believing that removal would create such a risk. The Upper Tribunal failed to correct that error.
5. The Article 3 issue was remitted for a rehearing. No existing factual findings on the appellant’s health were preserved, and the rehearing was to consider her current physical and mental health and evidence concerning medical facilities in Vietnam.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division) — under [2023] EWCA Civ 1222, dismissed the cessation challenge, allowed the Article 3 appeal and remitted that issue to the First-tier Tribunal.
• Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) — dismissed the appeal on 28 October 2021.
• First-tier Tribunal — dismissed the appeal against revocation of refugee status and refusal of the human rights claim on 16 March 2021.