Adam Pipe's third video in his series on the November 2024 Practice Direction for the First-tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) explains the important new requirements for including country information in appeal bundles
Auto-generated using YouTube's transcript and OpenAI (accuracy cannot be guaranteed)
Hi. In this latest immigration law update video, I'm going to continue my series on the new practice direction for the First-Tier Tribunal Immigration and Asylum Chamber. In this video, I'm going to focus on country evidence in immigration and asylum appeals.
I've shared my screen, and on my screen—like in the other videos in this series—is the EIN link to the practice direction that's available to everybody. I'll post it below this video. As I've said in other videos, there's been a helpful guide published by the First-Tier Tribunal, including a short video explainer, and the link to that is also set out below this video.
But let's get back to the practice direction. Remember our key overriding themes for the practice direction: focusing on the disputed issues and conducting proceedings with procedural rigor. So, procedural rigor and disputed issues. In this video, as I said, I'm going to look at Section 10 of the practice direction, which covers country information evidence.
This will largely concern asylum or protection appeals, although country information evidence may be relevant in other cases. So, don't switch off—it may be relevant if you're arguing private life in terms of very significant obstacles to integration, or family life, say in a partner case where you're arguing EX1(b) and the question of insurmountable obstacles.
10.1 sets out information about reported decisions bearing the letters "CG"—these are country guidance decisions. A country guidance decision of the Tribunal shall be treated as authoritative in terms of the country guidance issue identified in the decision, based upon the evidence that was before the Tribunal. It will be binding unless it has been superseded or replaced.
10.2 sets out that representatives should be familiar with the current list of country guidance decisions. Failure to follow a country guidance decision, as noted in 10.3, is likely to be an error of law. So, if you're a representative, make sure you address the relevant country guidance decision. Ensure the Tribunal's attention is drawn to it and that it is addressed in your appeal skeleton argument.
If you've got a country guidance decision against you, there's no point in staying silent on it—you need to address it. For example, if a judge were to allow an appeal in ignorance of a country guidance case, it would likely be overturned in any event. So, it's important to address country guidance decisions.
10.4 states that only if there is no applicable or relevant country guidance—or if a party argues that the Tribunal should depart from the country guidance—is it necessary for a party to provide background country material or information relating to the country background or conditions.
10.5 specifies that any party wishing to rely on country background information not available in the relevant country guidance decision must make this clear and identify the disputed issue to which it relates. It's worth setting this out in your appeal skeleton argument, cross-referencing the country evidence and the disputed issue it relates to. However, you're no longer expected to provide hundreds of pages of country information. Instead, you must produce a country information evidence schedule.
In your index to your bundle, one of the items should be the country information evidence schedule. 10.6 states that parties relying on material within country guidance decisions or additional country background information must include a country information evidence schedule within the bundle. This schedule must contain country guidance paragraph references and/or the extracts of the additional country background information relied upon, organized by reference to each disputed issue.
It's probably worth breaking your schedule into headings. For example, if it's a protection claim, the disputed issues might be "risk" and "relocation." You would have a heading for "risk," with the relevant country paragraphs and extracts set out below that, and another heading for "relocation," where you would set out the relevant extracts.
Remember, the schedule must not exceed 12 pages. Be aware that the minimum font size is 12-point, and the minimum spacing is 1.5 lines. You don't have to include the entire document—just the relevant hyperlink to the background information source document.
10.7 states that only if a party challenges the accuracy or context of an extract can they put the other party on notice—within the ASA or, for the Home Office, in the review—that it will be necessary to produce the whole source document for the hearing. This can be relevant if, for example, in a Home Office refusal letter, an extract is cited, and you believe that viewing the entire source document or its context reveals inaccuracies. You might want to challenge that. So, do be aware of 10.7.
10.8 provides that you can apply in writing, with reasons, for permission to rely on a schedule that exceeds 12 pages. You must attach the schedule to your application.
I've opened up the link on EIN, which is part of the public EIN site. EIN also has a subscription site where you can create these schedules. There's a note issued on how EIN has changed its functionality to enable you to produce schedules that are fully compliant with the new practice direction. I've put the link below this video.
If you're going to rely on country evidence, you need to make sure you're producing a schedule—not just dumping in hundreds of pages, but producing a compliant schedule of no more than 12 pages that includes the hyperlinks.
I hope that's helpful to you. Thank you.