AL v Secretary of State for the Home Department

In immigration appeals, the parties must identify the principal controversial issues for the First-tier Tribunal. The tribunal must decide the identified issues needed for a fair determination, but need not search the papers or expert evidence for unargued points. A narrow exception applies to an obvious Refugee Convention point with strong prospects of success, as explained in R (Robinson) [1998] QB 929. The approach in Lata [2023] UKUT 00163 was endorsed. For an Article 3 health claim, the appellant must establish a real risk of serious, rapid and irreversible decline causing intense suffering because appropriate treatment is absent or inaccessible. In an Article 8 assessment, statutory factors are not exhaustive and precarious residence remains relevant to proportionality.

AL, a national of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, appealed against refusal of her asylum and other claims. She resisted removal on Refugee Convention, Article 3 health and Article 8 grounds. The First-tier Tribunal dismissed her appeal, finding that her protection claim was not genuine, that treatment and family support were available in the DRC, and that removal was proportionate. The Upper Tribunal dismissed her appeal, holding that the First-tier Tribunal had made no error of law. Before the Court of Appeal, AL argued that the First-tier Tribunal had failed to consider separation from her UK carers, the removal process, the dignity implications of intimate care by male relatives, and material evidence relevant to Article 8.

The appeal was dismissed unanimously. Lady Justice Elisabeth Laing gave the leading judgment. Lord Justice Holgate and the President of the Family Division agreed.

1. The parties in First-tier Tribunal proceedings must identify the principal controversial issues and engage constructively in defining and narrowing them. The tribunal must decide the issues needed to determine the appeal fairly and give reasons for its conclusions, but its function is not inquisitorial. It is not required to comb the documents or evidence for potential points. If it does not understand an issue that has been raised, it should seek clarification.
2. The approach in Lata [2023] UKUT 00163; [2023] Imm AR 1416 was endorsed. The qualification left open in AAZA (Yemen) [2025] EWCA Civ 705 was unlikely to create serious injustice under the new procedural regime. The narrow exception in R (Robinson) [1998] QB 929 applies to an obvious Refugee Convention point with strong prospects of success. It does not require a tribunal to search for merely arguable points.
3. The relevant Article 3 health test requires substantial grounds for believing that removal would expose a seriously ill person to a real risk of serious, rapid and irreversible decline resulting in intense suffering because appropriate treatment is absent or inaccessible. The First-tier Tribunal found that treatment and family support would be available in the DRC and rejected the factual premises of the medical evidence relied upon by AL. It was entitled to conclude that the threshold was not met.
4. The three points concerning separation from UK carers, the removal process and intimate care by male relatives were not advanced in support of the Article 3 health claim. The First-tier Tribunal therefore disclosed no error of law by failing to address them in that context. It considered the relevant care and dignity matters in its Article 8 assessment. The omission of the removal-process point also disclosed no error because that point had not been raised. Even if the three points had been considered under Article 3, the proportionality findings made it inconceivable that the stricter threshold would have been met.
5. Part 5A of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 is not an exhaustive statement of the factors relevant to Article 8 proportionality. The precariousness or unlawfulness of residence may affect the weight given to family and private life. The court assumed, without deciding, that personal care could constitute treatment for the Article 3 test. It also treated the section 3C residence point as marginal at best.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division) [2026] EWCA Civ 370, 31 March 2026: appeal dismissed.
2. Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber), determination 2, UI-2024-002622: appeal dismissed; no error of law was found in the First-tier Tribunal’s determination.
3. First-tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber), determination 1: asylum, protection, Article 3 health and Article 8 claims dismissed.