Introduction

AM (Iran) v. Secretary of State for the Home Department is a pivotal case decided by the England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) on December 6, 2018. The appellant, AM, an Iranian national, challenged the deportation order issued by the Secretary of State, arguing that his removal to Iran would expose him to ill-treatment, thereby contravening his rights under Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).

The core issues revolved around the authenticity of AM’s claim of being a Christian convert—a factor that significantly influences the risk assessment upon return to Iran. Additionally, the case addressed procedural concerns regarding the withdrawal of concessions made by the Secretary of State during the tribunal process.

Summary of the Judgment

The Upper Tribunal (Asylum and Immigration Chamber) initially ruled in favor of AM, determining that his deportation to Iran would breach Article 3 of the ECHR due to the risk of ill-treatment. The Secretary of State appealed this decision, contesting both the factual findings and legal interpretations made by the tribunal.

The Court of Appeal scrutinized the application of Country Guidance (CG) cases and the adherence to procedural norms, particularly focusing on the improper withdrawal of concessions by the Secretary of State. The appellate court concluded that the Upper Tribunal had erred by not adequately considering established CG cases relevant to the treatment of Christian converts in Iran. Furthermore, the court found that the Secretary of State’s attempt to withdraw concessions was procedurally flawed and unjustifiable, leading to the reinstatement of the First-tier Tribunal’s decision favoring AM.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment extensively referenced prior cases and Country Guidance (CG) determinations that shaped the legal landscape regarding the treatment of Christian converts in Iran. Notable precedents include:

• FS and others (Iran - Christian converts) Iran CG [2004] UKIAT 00303: Established that ordinary Christian converts in Iran do not face a “real risk” of persecution under Article 3, allowing them to maintain their social and economic lives with some caution.
• SZ and JM (Christians - FS Confirmed) Iran CG [2008] UKIAT 00082: Confirmed the principles laid out in FS and others, specifying that active converts such as pastors or evangelists do face significant risks.
• SB (risk on return - illegal exit) Iran CG [2009] UKAIT 0053: Highlighted that while ordinary converts might not face severe persecution, accusations of anti-Islamic conduct are significant risk factors.
• AB and others (internet activity - state of the evidence) Iran [2015] UKUT 257 (IAC): Addressed risks associated with online activities, indicating that active internet engagement could increase the likelihood of facing hostile interrogation upon return.

Legal Reasoning

The Court of Appeal meticulously evaluated the Upper Tribunal’s failure to appropriately apply the established CG cases. The tribunal had neglected to consider whether AM’s extensive Twitter activity and the potential deletion of his account could mitigate the perceived risks. Furthermore, the appellate court emphasized the necessity of adhering to CG determinations unless superseded by more recent authoritative guidance.

A critical aspect of the legal reasoning pertained to the Secretary of State’s concession—that AM, perceived as a Christian convert, would face a real risk of ill-treatment. The court determined that such a concession should not have overridden the tribunal’s duty to conduct a case-specific risk assessment based on the most recent and relevant CG cases.

Impact

This judgment reinforces the importance of adherence to established Country Guidance in asylum cases, ensuring that tribunals base their risk assessments on authoritative and up-to-date sources. It also delineates the procedural boundaries regarding the withdrawal of concessions, underscoring that such actions must align with principles of justice and fairness. Future cases will likely reference this precedent to ensure that concessions made during tribunal proceedings are not retracted without substantial justification and procedural propriety.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Country Guidance (CG)

CG refers to determinations made by immigration tribunals that provide authoritative findings on conditions in specific countries. These determinations guide decision-makers in assessing the risks faced by individuals returning to their home countries.

Concession

In legal proceedings, a concession is an acknowledgment by one party of a certain fact or point of law, which can influence the outcome of the case. The withdrawal of such concessions, especially after initial acceptance, can complicate the legal process and impact the fairness of the hearing.

Article 3 of the ECHR

Article 3 prohibits torture and inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. In the context of asylum law, it serves as a safeguard against deporting individuals to countries where they may face such treatment.

Real Risk of Ill-Treatment

This legal standard assesses whether an individual would likely face severe harm if returned to their home country. It is a critical factor in determining the legality of deportations under human rights laws.

Conclusion

The AM (Iran) v. Secretary of State for the Home Department case underscores the judiciary’s commitment to ensuring that deportation decisions are grounded in robust legal reasoning and adherence to established precedents. By highlighting the procedural missteps in the withdrawal of concessions, the Court of Appeal affirmed the necessity of maintaining consistency and fairness in asylum adjudications. This judgment serves as a crucial reference point for future cases, emphasizing that tribunals must diligently apply relevant Country Guidance and that any concessions made must withstand scrutiny to uphold the principles of justice and human rights.