The Claimant was seeking asylum. The Claimant’s family history put him at risk from the Afghan authorities. The claimant’s father had been a member of a Mujahadeen group, the leader of which was S. S was a close friend of the current President of Afghanistan. The group had been involved in large scale massacres during the civil war. In 2002, the claimant’s father had been arrested and subsequently convicted of several murders. He was sentenced to death. The claimant’s brother had been killed at the family home and the claimants associate in business severally attacked. An Amnesty International statement and report of a ‘Dr G’ indicated that execution may have been an attempt by powerful political actors to eliminate a key witness to human rights abuses.

The claimant sought refugee status and human rights and humanitarian protection on the basis that if he returned he would be at risk from the Afghan authorities and bereaved relatives of the individual’s his father had murdered.

His application was dismissed, and the claimant appealed. The immigration judge dismissed his appeal who although accepting the credibility of the claimant, did not accept that he had a risk profile.

A second stage reconsideration was ordered to decide all the issues, except the credibility findings made in respect of the claimant which were to stand. At the second reconsideration the judge concluded that the claimant’s evidence was purely speculative.  He noted that there was no basis on which to find that the claimant would be of any interest to S or the Afghan authorities, and that there was no evidence to support the claimant’s assertion that his brother had been killed by agents of the government. He dismissed the appeal. The claimant appealed.

The claimant submitted that (i) the failure of the judge to consider the AI statement and ‘Dr G’s’ report constituted an error of law; and (ii) the judge should have been bound by the order that the findings as to the claimant’s credibility were to stand.

The appeal was allowed. It was held that (i) the judge had made an error of law (ii) the judge was required to accept the claimant’s account as credible.