The High Court refused an applicant leave to seek judicial review of the International Protection Appeals Tribunal’s decision refusing him refugee and subsidiary protection declarations, finding he had not shown substantial grounds to challenge its credibility assessment.
The anonymised applicant, M.K., challenged a Tribunal decision dated 4 October 2021. The Tribunal had confirmed an International Protection Office recommendation that he receive neither form of protection. The judicial review hearing concerned whether he could proceed with his challenge; the High Court did not reconsider his protection claim on its merits.
The applicant, who was born in Pakistan, said he joined the Pakistani People’s Party in 2009. He claimed that members of the Pakistani Muslim League beat him in 2010, that he was later knocked from a motorbike, and that a person fired a gun in his direction. He also said that in November 2011 masked men shot at the motorbike he was travelling on with his cousin, killing his cousin. He believed he was the target and that the attackers were connected to the PML. He said police would not take a report and detained him several times for questioning about the killing. These were the applicant’s claims, not findings by the High Court.
The applicant argued that the Tribunal’s finding that his explanation for being targeted was vague and incoherent was irrational or unfair. The High Court held that the Tribunal could reasonably expect him to explain what progress he had made in the party, which he said had led to the targeting. The judge said country-of-origin information could not supply an explanation that had to come from the applicant’s own evidence.
The applicant also challenged the Tribunal’s concern that he had produced no documents, or evidence of attempts to obtain them, to support his account of his cousin’s killing. The court considered it reasonable for the Tribunal to seek documentation or evidence of an attempt to obtain it, and said the Tribunal was entitled not to accept his explanation for its absence.
A further challenge concerned his account of whom he feared in Pakistan. The Tribunal noted that he had named the PML and police earlier in the process, but mentioned fear of the Koker family in Lahore only at the hearing. The High Court said the Tribunal was entitled to find his accounts lacked expected detail. It could not use judicial review to reassess the evidence and reach a more favourable conclusion for him.
The court refused leave because the applicant had not established substantial grounds. Costs were not finally determined: the judge gave a preliminary view that the respondents, having been entirely successful, were entitled to costs, including reserved costs, subject to agreement. The applicant could file short written submissions by 7 October 2022 if he wished to contest costs. The matter was listed for mention on 14 October 2022.