The High Court has quashed a Refugee Appeals Tribunal decision refusing refugee status to an anonymised Iraqi applicant, finding flaws in the interpretation provided at his appeal hearing and in the Tribunal’s treatment of country information and identity documents.
In a judgment delivered on 19 December 2014, Ms Justice Faherty formally granted leave to seek judicial review and, because the hearing was conducted on a telescoped basis, made an order of certiorari quashing the Tribunal’s decision. She directed that the matter be remitted for reconsideration by a different member of the Refugee Appeals Tribunal. The court did not decide whether the applicant qualified for refugee status.
The applicant, identified in the judgment as M.A.I., said he feared an unnamed terrorist group in Iraq. He claimed masked men had asked him, while he was working as a shepherd, to drive a car containing explosives to a police station. He said he went to the police, who did not believe him, and later left Iraq after his mother told him men had come looking for him. These were the applicant’s claims, not findings by the court.
At the appeal hearing on 4 May 2010, the interpreter spoke Kurdish-Sorani, while the applicant spoke Kurdish-Badini. The Tribunal proceeded after the applicant raised a concern about differences in dialect. The judge accepted evidence that the applicant’s solicitor had sought an adjournment and that it was refused. She found that, without evidence the Tribunal member could understand both dialects, his view that the applicant was understood did not establish that the hearing was fair. The judge said interpretation difficulties could have contributed to an inconsistency the Tribunal relied on in assessing credibility, although she could not determine whether they had done so.
The judge also found that the Tribunal had not explained how it weighed country of origin information submitted by the applicant, including 2009 UNHCR guidance on Iraq. That material described risks in several central Iraqi governorates, including Ninewa, which the applicant claimed as his home governorate. The judgment held that the Tribunal needed to explain the nature and weight of its consideration of relevant country information, and its reasons for rejecting it if it did so.
The Tribunal had also given “no weight” to the applicant’s identity document without stating why. The judge found that this was potentially relevant to his claim of Iraqi nationality and origin in Ninewa, and that the rejection lacked clear reasons. She further found the Tribunal’s brief dismissal of his explanation for not seeking asylum in Turkey flawed because it did not explain why his stated fear that his claim would not be received favourably was rejected.
The court rejected a separate argument that the Tribunal had merely adopted two of the Commissioner’s credibility findings. It did not determine the underlying refugee claim; that remains for reconsideration by a different Tribunal member.