This is a renewed application for permission to appeal following refusal in writing in relation to a young Kurdish extraction man from Turkey, an adherent to the Alevi branch of Islam. I say “young” because he was born in March 1981. His account has been that both he and his family have been targeted from time to time, and indeed subject to periods of detention when he has been ill treated in such a way as to indicate that he has been of interest to the authorities, and is likely to be subjected to similar persecutory treatment should he be returned; in particular that the authorities have a file on him, as he asserts they told him, and in those circumstances would be particular at risk on his return.

The second time around hearing by the AIT was heard by two designated immigration judges. Mr Jones, who both in writing and orally argued this matter excellently on behalf of this young man, accepts that in order to show that permission should be given, he has to establish that there is a real prospect of establishing that the decision of these two judges was perverse.

The conclusion of the judges was that the accounts given by this appellant as to what happened in 2004 was not credible. In 2004 he said an incident had taken place in which he had asked to hide leaflets, magazines and newspapers, and it was that incident which triggered his departure; because, having hidden those items, the gendarmes raided the village and found the box in his barn (see his account at paragraphs 28 and 29 as recorded on the decision).

The judges found that that account was not credible and they gave their reasoning, particularly relating to inconsistencies in his account as to the circumstances in which he was required or asked to hide such leaflets, newspapers and magazines. Accordingly, they did not believe his account as to why he had left Turkey. They were prepared, despite doubt that they had identified in relation to earlier detentions, to accept that he was detained at a Newroz celebration back in March 1998, and also in relation to two other detentions, but they did not accept that he had been especially targeted but rather that he had been of passing interest by reason of his being a young Alevi Kurd in a Kurdish village in a predominately Turkish area. But the finding as to the cause as to why he left was of significance because it meant that he had given no credible explanation of why he had left Turkey, and indeed had been prepared to live there for a considerable period after the earlier incidents which he identified.

In relation to those incidents, where his account was not believed the judges properly gave reasons which related not to plausibility in the main, but rather to internal inconsistencies. They do refer to plausibility; which triggers a submission that their conclusions as to the credibility of this young man failed to take into account expert evidence which was advanced on his behalf as to which there were no findings one way or the other. The expert evidence was from a Ms Sheri Laizer and, as Mr Jones points out, showed that the accounts of the targeting which this applicant alleged were entirely consistent with the background material and the opinion of Ms Sheri Laizer, and indeed went to support his fear as to risk of persecution on return.

The difficulty with that submission is that the essential basis upon which these judges disbelieved this young man did not depend on plausibility, did not depend one way or the other on consistency with the background material, but on their assessment of his own account. The fact-finding body, as it is trite to observe, is perfectly entitled to test the credibility of one seeking refugee status by the internal consistency of his account. This applicant unfortunately failed. In those circumstances, it was nothing to the point that his account of being targeted was consistent with history of others in a similar position. Whilst I echo Buxton LJ’s reminder that it would be much better at least to refer to findings in relation to the background material and the expert report, in the instant case in my judgment it made no difference.

The complaints do not stop there. Mr Jones rightly points out that there were parts of the account of the complaints made as recorded by the immigration judges, particularly at page 23, of other occasions when he was detained and questioned and, in particular, an occasion, as he describes it, where he the gendarmes wanted to see his identity card, took it, as well as taking his fingerprints and photographs, and was told that a file had been opened for him. No specific finding one way or the other is made about that or about other occasions when he said he was detained for brief periods between January 2000 and August 2001, and subject on five or six times to intimidation and harassment from detention in April 2003.

These accounts were recorded as complaints in the decision. Whilst it might have been better had more specific findings been made about them, the overall findings make it clear that whilst they were prepared to accept that he had in passing been detained, deplorable though that is, that did not amount to the sort of targeted persecution which would give rise to a well founded risk of persecution on his return. In short, their conclusory remarks sufficiently cover the particular complaints that they had earlier recorded.

In those circumstances, whilst there have been defects in this decision, they are not such as to give to rise to any real prospect of success in an appeal were permission to be given, and in those circumstances permission is refused.