The High Court refused an applicant’s request for leave to bring a judicial review and dismissed the claim, upholding the Refugee Appeals Tribunal’s decision to affirm the recommendation that he not be declared a refugee.
In a judgment delivered on 13 October 2015, Mr Justice Eagar said the case was heard on a “telescoped” basis, combining the application for leave with the substantive judicial review. The court’s order was to refuse leave and dismiss the claim; it did not grant the requested order quashing the Tribunal decision.
The applicant, identified in the judgment as G.A.N. (Cameroon), arrived in Ireland in May 2011 and sought asylum. He claimed that he was involved with the Southern Cameroon National Council (SCNC), had been arrested in 2008, and feared arrest and potentially death after political activity in February 2011. He relied on documents including a birth certificate, national identity card, an SCNC membership card, an arrest warrant and an affidavit concerning his work at a law chambers.
The Tribunal had affirmed the Refugee Applications Commissioner’s recommendation that he not be declared a refugee. Its adverse credibility assessment referred to inconsistencies in his account of his work and political activity, the timing of the arrest warrant, his continued daily routine near government lawyers, the lack of harm to family members who remained in Cameroon, and his limited knowledge of some SCNC activities. It also found that photocopied documents could not be relied on.
The applicant argued that the Tribunal had failed to make findings on his nationality and identity, properly assess his SCNC membership card, or give him a fair opportunity to address some credibility concerns. He also challenged the assessment of his demeanour and the treatment of evidence about his political activity and protection on return. The respondents submitted that the credibility findings were supported by specific and rational reasons.
Justice Eagar accepted that country information supported the proposition that association with the SCNC could make a person vulnerable. But he said the applicant still had to establish that his own claim was well-founded. The court considered the Tribunal’s credibility assessment as a whole and concluded that it had correctly applied the principles set out in an earlier High Court decision concerning credibility reviews.
The judge noted that the Tribunal’s description of one answer as “incoherent” was difficult to analyse without a written account of the hearing. He said that concern illustrated a wider problem with the documentation available to the court, but concluded that the stated reasons for the credibility findings related to the substance of the claim.