The High Court refused a married couple leave to seek judicial review of recommendations that they should not receive refugee status, finding no substantial grounds to challenge the decisions of the Refugee Applications Commissioner.
The couple, Zimbabwean nationals, had claimed they fled persecution in 2007 because of family links to prominent members of the opposition MDC. They described intimidation and attacks in Zimbabwe, including an attack on their farmhouse. The Commissioner found their accounts manifestly unfounded under section 13(6) of the Refugee Act 1996, which meant any appeal to the Refugee Appeals Tribunal would be decided without an oral hearing.
Information from UK authorities indicated that people matching the couple’s biographical details had lived in the UK during the period when they said they were being persecuted in Zimbabwe. At interview, the husband denied having lived in the UK. The wife initially denied the information applied to her, then said she had been in the UK since 2002 and that the couple had married there in 2006. The husband later admitted, in qualified terms, that he had given false information, but did not specify which information was incorrect.
The couple argued that the Commissioner had failed to assess their claimed relationship to “TM”, a former Zimbabwean MP who had received refugee status in the UK, and that the husband should have been told about his wife’s admissions. The court rejected the fairness argument: the husband’s second interview took place before his wife’s later interview, after he had already been confronted with information about UK residence and maintained his account. The judge said there was no requirement to put the adverse information to him again.
The court also rejected the challenge to the paper-based appeal process. It said the couple could explain their account in writing, submit further evidence and, if necessary, ask the Tribunal to seek further inquiries or written observations from the Commissioner. A later Tribunal decision could itself be challenged by judicial review.
The judgment said the Commissioner had examined the asserted family relationship and had acted lawfully and reasonably in making the negative recommendations. The judge refused leave. The court did not determine the couple’s outstanding Tribunal appeals or decide whether they qualified for refugee protection.