MH (Iran) v Secretary of State for the Home Department

This is a renewed application for leave to appeal against the determination by the Immigration Judge of a reconsidered decision under Section 103(A) of the Nationality Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 promulgated on 7 March 2007, which dismissed the appeal by MH against the decision of the Secretary of State refusing to grant him refugee recognition and indeed against the consequent removal directions. Leave to appeal was refused by the single judge, and refused on identical grounds by the Lord Justice.

We shall not recite the facts in detail. The applicant was born in Iran in 1953, during the former regime of the Shah. He joined the army. The regime fell in 1979, and was succeeded by the Islamic Revolution. According to the applicant’s account, he joined what became an illegal pro-monarchist party in a city called Mashhad in the northeast of the country. He did that in about 1982, and for twenty years or so he worked for and supported the objectives of that party.

As a result of his activities, in about June 2000 he found himself in considerable difficulties, and in effect went into hiding. In August 2002, he fled by boat to Dubai and then flew on the following day to the United Kingdom, entering on a forged British passport on 8 August, and according to his account, approaching a police officer and seeking political asylum.

On 27 September 2002 the Secretary of State issued a refusal letter, and the process of examining his appeal against that decision has now continued for something like five years. The decision determination with which we are concerned was dated 6 February 2007, after the Immigration Judge had heard the oral evidence of the applicant himself. He who was legally represented. He was shown and viewed videos which evidenced the applicant’s political activities in this country since his arrival here; country of origin information and other objective material, including articles from Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch and also a UNHCR background report from 1998, and a CEDUKD report dated 2002. In addition, letters were produced by the applicant intended to show that he had been involved in political activities inimical to the present regime in Iraq while here; in other words, letters which supported the videos. It was part of his case that the videos had been shown in Iran, but the Immigration Judge was not satisfied as to that. Nevertheless, that remained the applicant’s belief.

The first ground of appeal is a “reasons” ground. There are a number of findings of fact set out in the determination under the headline “Findings of fact and credibility” between paragraphs 57 and 64. The essential finding was that the Immigration Judge believed that the claims made by the applicant about his activities in the period up to 2000 were inconsistent with the objective material. In support of that finding, the Immigration Judge noted that the objective material stated that monarchist groups were not active in Iran by holding public meetings or distributing leaflets from this he went on to conclude that he was unable to accept that the account of events described by the applicant before June 2000, and did not accept the events alleged to have taken place thereafter.

The problem with these findings can be briefly summarised, and it is this. The UNHCR background report in 1998 (and pages C10 and 11 perhaps underline this most strongly) was at the very least consistent with the claim made by the applicant that he had gone into hiding underground, and his activities had become covert just because of the situation described in that background report. The background report from UNHCR does not suggest that monarchist groups had ceased to be active in Iran through public meetings or the distribution of leaflets in the period up to 2000. True it is that the 2002 material may have supported that conclusion, but the objective material in relation to 2000 does not do so. In short, the applicant’s case may or may not be true, but arguably it was not right to make adverse findings against his credibility on the basis that his account to the Immigration Judge was not consistent with the objective evidence, or some of it.

None of this is dealt with in the reasons provided by the Immigration Judge. In those circumstances, it seems to me that the issue is arguable before the Court of Appeal, and on that ground leave should be given.

In relation to the second ground, that is from the applicant’s point of view much more problematic. In essence, this ground is that the consequences of the political activities of the applicant in the United Kingdom were not properly understood by the Immigration Judge. The judge took a short-term view of the potential risks to which the applicant would be subject on his return to Iran, but in doing so overlooked that the applicant would put himself at risk in any event because of his professed determination to make whatever sacrifices were necessary in support of his principles. The determination at paragraph 49 sets out the summary of the relevant passages in the applicant’s evidence.

The problem with this ground can be readily summarised. The issues now sought to be raised in this ground were simply not canvassed before the Immigration Judge. I can find no indication that any evidence was specifically directed to this issue, although it is true the applicant said that which is recorded at paragraph 49. The issue of how this would bear on his future in Iran was not addressed. No submissions were made to the Immigration Judge upon the subject, and indeed it is difficult to discern that any argument on this point was put before him at all. If it was put, it must have been by way of afterthought or very short footnote.

In those circumstances, I can see no basis for concluding that it is arguable that the Immigration Judge fell into error in relation to this ground of appeal. Accordingly, I should grant leave to appeal on the first “reasons” ground, but refuse on the second.

I agree.