The applicant, a national of Uzbekistan, claimed a well-founded fear of persecution on account of her ethnicity and religion. Both the Commissioner and Tribunal refused her claim, raising doubts about her credibility. The applicant challenged the Tribunal’s decision, arguing that an adverse credibility finding should be based on reasons bearing a legitimate nexus to the adverse finding, and that credibility should be assessed in the context of the available country of origin information.
The High Court held there were substantial grounds for claiming that where credibility arises as an issue the Tribunal is obliged to make an express finding on the matter. The Court also concluded that there were substantial grounds for asserting as law the principle in R v Immigration Appeals Tribunal ex parte Ahmed, i.e. that applying the principle in Horvath v Secretary of State for the Home Department, an adjudicator is obliged to at least make some finding about the general position in the country of origin and to assess the credibility of an applicant’s concern in that context.