The High Court granted an Iranian asylum seeker leave to seek judicial review of a Refugee Appeals Tribunal decision that upheld the refusal of his asylum claim. It also extended time for his slightly late application. The court did not decide whether he qualified for refugee status or quash the tribunal decision at this stage.
The applicant, identified in the judgment as E.N., said he feared persecution in Iran because of his support for the restoration of the monarchy. The tribunal had rejected his account as not generally credible and affirmed the Refugee Applications Commissioner’s recommendation that he not be declared a refugee.
The challenge concerned the tribunal’s fresh decision of 14 June 2007, following an earlier tribunal decision that had been quashed by consent and remitted for reconsideration. The applicant argued that the tribunal member had overlooked material sent by his solicitor within a 14-day period after the appeal hearing.
The High Court found that the tribunal member had incorrectly recorded that no evidence had been submitted about the risk to failed asylum seekers returned to Iran. The respondents accepted that the solicitor’s 31 May 2007 letter included country information on that issue. The judge also found that photographs of the applicant’s parents’ tombstones, submitted with the letter, could support his account that they died on the same day, although they did not resolve all the dispute about their deaths.
The tribunal member had also stated that the applicant provided no original identity document. The High Court found that the original Iranian military service card had been sent with the 31 May letter and identified the applicant and Iran as his country. The judge said the tribunal was required by section 11B of the Refugee Act 1996, as amended, to consider whether an applicant possessed identity documents. The court said the tribunal member’s failure to account for the submitted material meant the credibility assessment had been made on only part of the evidence and was based on multiple material factual errors.
The judge rejected the respondents’ submission that the omissions would not have affected the outcome. The ruling addressed fairness and fair procedures; it did not substitute the court’s view of the applicant’s credibility for the tribunal’s assessment. Leave to apply for judicial review was granted, and the court extended time for the application. The judgment does not record a final determination of the judicial review challenge.