The High Court permitted H. O. to seek judicial review of the Refugee Appeals Tribunal’s 2010 decision, but refused the requested relief and declined to strike the decision down. The Tribunal’s refusal of refugee status therefore remained in place.
The case concerned H. O.’s claim that he feared persecution in Mauritius because he had testified against members of the Hezbollah political party and its associated criminal group. He said state protection had been withdrawn and that he faced threats if returned. The Tribunal had rejected his claim, finding he would not face persecution for a Convention reason and, alternatively, that the refugee exclusion clause applied because of serious non-political crimes.
Mr Justice Barr considered four challenged credibility findings. He upheld the finding that H. O. had been vague about when his protection was withdrawn, and a separate finding that leaving his family in Mauritius undermined his account of the threat. He also left undisturbed the Tribunal’s finding that H. O.’s account of protection ending completely in 2005 conflicted with his account that it was later reinstated.
But two findings could not stand. The Tribunal had treated the continued residence of H. O.’s family in a security forces compound as contradicting an assertion that he had been evicted. The judge said H. O. had not claimed his family was evicted; his evidence concerned the withdrawal of his personal guards. The judge also found it irrational to treat his continuing fear of former members and relatives as inconsistent with his statement that the criminal group had been dismantled.
Because half of the four credibility findings were unsupported, the remaining findings could not sustain the Tribunal’s overall conclusion that H. O. lacked credibility. However, the judge found that H. O. had not rebutted the presumption that Mauritius could protect him and his family. The judgment noted that they had been protected in the compound and that H. O. said his family remained safe there.
The judge also upheld the Tribunal’s alternative exclusion finding. He concluded that it was entitled to find H. O. had participated in serious non-political offences, including murder, robbery and arson, and that serving part of an eight-year sentence did not prevent the exclusion provision from applying.
The court therefore permitted the judicial review application to be brought, while refusing the relief sought and refusing to quash the Tribunal’s decision dated 9 November 2010.