The High Court refused E. M. M. leave to seek judicial review of a Refugee Appeals Tribunal recommendation that his appeal for refugee status be rejected, finding he had not established substantial grounds to challenge it.
In a judgment delivered on 31 July 2009, Ms Justice Irvine said the court was considering whether the proposed challenge was arguable, not hearing an appeal against the tribunal’s decision. The tribunal had recommended refusing the appeal on 26 February 2008 and notified the applicant by letter dated 14 March 2008.
E. M. M., who said he was from the Democratic Republic of Congo, claimed he feared persecution because of his Banyamulenge ethnicity and his father’s alleged political connections. He said he had been detained and tortured, and escaped before leaving the country. These were his claims; the tribunal rejected them, finding key parts of his account not credible.
The tribunal cited contradictions between his account of his father’s disappearance and death and a copy of the applicant’s birth certificate. The document recorded that his father had appeared at a civil registry in Kinshasa in February 2006, declared himself the applicant’s father, and described himself as a civil servant living there. The High Court said the tribunal was entitled to rely on that material in assessing the claim about the father’s alleged political activities.
The court also upheld the tribunal’s concerns about the account of escape from detention and the applicant’s claimed risk because of his ethnicity. It said the tribunal had considered both bases for the asylum claim and that credibility assessments were for the tribunal, provided it applied proper principles and gave the applicant an opportunity to address inconsistencies.
The applicant also alleged unfairness arising from two earlier hearing dates, including an exchange between the tribunal member and his counsel about another case. The court found no arguable case that the tribunal member had prejudged the claim or denied fair procedures. It noted no complaint or request for the member to step aside was made at the time, and found that the applicant’s later participation in the process precluded reliance on the alleged earlier unfairness.
The court concluded that no arguable case had been made that relevant evidence was excluded, improper material considered, or the tribunal’s decision reached irrationally. It refused leave to seek judicial review. The ruling addressed permission to bring the challenge; it did not itself determine refugee status on appeal.