WAS (Pakistan) v Secretary of State for the Home Department
[2023] EWCA Civ 894
MAH (Egypt) v Secretary of State for the Home Department
28 February 2023
[2023] EWCA Civ 216
Court of Appeal
A young man from Egypt claimed asylum in the UK because his father was in prison, possibly for being part of a group the government didn't like. A lower court said he wasn't believable because he didn't get enough proof to support his story. A higher court said that wasn't fair, he didn't need that much proof, and he should get asylum.
Key Facts
- •The appellant, an Egyptian national, claimed international protection due to fears of persecution stemming from his father's alleged association with the Muslim Brotherhood.
- •The Upper Tribunal (UT) dismissed the appeal, finding the appellant lacked credibility due to a perceived failure to obtain corroborative evidence.
- •The UT accepted significant aspects of the appellant's account, including his father's imprisonment and death in prison.
- •The UT's adverse credibility findings focused on the appellant's failure to obtain information from his father's lawyer, a human rights organization, and family members.
- •The appellant was 14 when his father was imprisoned and 15 when he fled Egypt.
Legal Principles
Lower standard of proof in asylum cases requires a 'reasonable degree of likelihood' of persecution.
R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Sivakumaran [1988] AC 958
No legal duty to provide corroborative evidence in protection claims, but its absence can be considered depending on the circumstances.
Kasolo v Secretary of State for the Home Department (13190)
Appellate courts will interfere if a judge makes material errors in evidence evaluation or if the inference drawn from a fact found is logically flawed.
SB (Sri Lanka) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2019] EWCA Civ 160
Assessment of risk, not actuality, is crucial in asylum cases. The tribunal must consider all evidence in the round.
Ravichandran v Secretary of State for the Home Department [1996] Imm AR 97
Article 4(5) of the Qualification Directive and para 339L of the Immigration Rules stipulate that corroborative evidence isn't required if certain criteria are met. Absence of some criteria doesn't automatically necessitate corroboration.
Council Directive 2004/83/EC, Immigration Rules para. 339L
Outcomes
Appeal allowed.
The UT erred by applying too high a standard of proof, requiring corroborative evidence where none was legally required, and failing to adequately consider all evidence in the round, particularly the appellant's age and the conditions in Egypt.
UT's decision set aside.
The Court of Appeal remade the decision, allowing the underlying appeal because the appellant qualifies as a refugee based on the correct legal principles and evidence presented.
Similar Cases
ASO (Iraq) v Secretary of State for the Home Department
[2023] EWCA Civ 1282
KG (Turkey) v The Secretary of State for the Home Department
[2022] EWCA Civ 1578
The Secretary of State for the Home Department v TC
[2023] UKUT 164 (IAC)
JCK (Botswana) v Secretary of State for the Home Department
[2024] UKUT 100 (IAC)