The High Court has refused a Liberian man’s application to quash a decision dismissing his refugee appeal, finding that the Refugee Appeals Tribunal had considered the country information before it and reached a reasonable conclusion. The court did not order a new hearing.
The applicant, identified in the judgment as J. S., sought judicial review of the tribunal’s decision of 6 October 2006. He also sought an order sending his appeal back for a fresh hearing before a different tribunal member. He had received leave to bring the challenge in February 2008.
The applicant said he feared persecution because of his Americo-Liberian ethnicity and his family’s links to Charles Taylor. He told the asylum authorities that his father, a member of Taylor’s political movement, was killed in 1995, and that his mother and pregnant girlfriend were killed by LURD forces in 2003. A medical report was submitted to support his account that he had been assaulted in the same incident. He later fled Liberia for Ivory Coast and came to Ireland in 2006.
The tribunal had dismissed his appeal, concluding that he had not established a well-founded fear of persecution. It relied on country reports describing improvements in security and civilian protection in Liberia, and concluded that protection and internal relocation were available. The applicant argued in the High Court that the tribunal had selectively relied on some reports, failed to assess his claimed risk because of ethnicity, and made errors about changed conditions, protection and relocation.
The court reviewed four country information documents: material from the UK Home Office and UNHCR, and reports from Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch. It found that all four described significant improvements in protection for civilians, while also identifying continuing problems with policing, the justice system and social and economic conditions. The court concluded that the tribunal’s findings were consistent with the overall content of the reports and that there was no major conflict requiring it to explain a preference between them.
The judge also noted that the applicant’s claimed ethnic risk had been put to him at the tribunal hearing, but that no country information supported a risk on that ground. The court found that the tribunal had considered his background and his claim that he could be targeted as a former Taylor supporter. It also rejected an alleged factual error concerning the deployment of UN troops and civilian police, observing that the mandate had been renewed and that the figures were supported by the latest reports considered.
The High Court held that the applicant had not established any ground for relief and refused the application. It therefore did not quash the tribunal’s decision or remit the appeal for a de novo hearing.