Key Facts
- •A, an Iraqi Kurd, claimed asylum in the UK after being rejected in Sweden, Denmark, Germany, and the Netherlands.
- •A's claim centered on the risk of violence in Iraq due to his relationship with his girlfriend, S.
- •The First-tier Tribunal (F-tT) dismissed A's appeal, finding him not credible and reliable.
- •The Upper Tribunal (UT) also dismissed the appeal.
- •A's appeal to the Court of Appeal (CoA) focused on whether the F-tT's assessment was flawed and whether the UT was justified in its decision.
Legal Principles
Appellate courts must recognize the F-tT's special expertise and assume correct application of the law unless there's an express or implicit misdirection.
Court of Appeal
In asylum appeals, the appellant need only show a real risk of persecution or harm, not prove facts on the balance of probabilities.
Karanarkaran v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2000] 3 All ER 449
To determine materiality of errors, the test is whether any rational tribunal must have reached the same conclusion on the materials before the F-tT.
Secretary of State for the Home Department v AJ (Angola) [2014] EWCA Civ 1636
Outcomes
The Court of Appeal allowed A's appeal.
The F-tT erred in law in its assessment of A's credibility, making material errors in its reasoning that impacted its overall conclusion. The UT failed to properly assess the F-tT's errors.