The High Court has quashed two Refugee Appeals Tribunal decisions refusing the asylum appeals of a Pakistani couple, finding that factual errors may have affected the Tribunal’s assessment of their credibility. It ordered both appeals to be reheard, but did not decide the applicants’ other grounds for judicial review.
The applicants, identified in the judgment as N. A-U. and T. A., are a married couple from Pakistan and members of the Ahmadi faith. They said they faced threats and attacks over their religious activities, including stone throwing and police raids, and that a blasphemy complaint had been filed against them. They arrived in Ireland in October 2006 and separately applied for asylum.
The Refugee Applications Commissioner recommended refusing their claims in reports issued in December 2006 and January 2007. The Tribunal dismissed their appeals in separate decisions on 26 and 27 July 2007, citing credibility concerns. These included their accounts of travelling to Ireland and their failure to seek asylum in another country. The decisions also relied on the view that they could have relocated within Pakistan, including to Rabwah.
The High Court said judicial review does not allow it to substitute its own view of credibility for the Tribunal’s. It nevertheless found that three errors identified in the husband’s case could be material. The Tribunal decision said his father-in-law continued to live and run a medical hall in Gujrat, although the appeal notice said he had relocated near Lahore after persistent threats. The court also examined an apparent misunderstanding of evidence about where the father-in-law lived, and a statement that the couple had relatives in Ireland, which the husband had disputed in the appeal notice.
The court said these errors, considered together, raised concern that the Tribunal had affirmed the Commissioner’s report without adequately addressing challenges made on appeal. It found the credibility assessment sufficiently unsound to require the husband’s appeal to be reheard.
In the wife’s appeal, the Tribunal had also relied on the claim that her father remained in Gujrat and practised his trade there. The High Court said the identified factual error was again used in assessing credibility, and that the decisions appeared to draw on evidence from both applicants while dealing with their appeals together. It quashed her decision as well.
The court made no ruling at this stage on the remaining grounds, including arguments about country-of-origin information. It said the reheard appeals could consider fresh, up-to-date information about conditions in Pakistan and that the Tribunal would be required to consult appropriate current information. The judgment was delivered by Mr Justice Cooke on 4 February 2010.