The High Court quashed a Refugee Appeals Tribunal decision rejecting a Congolese child’s refugee claim, finding that the tribunal had not adequately addressed the child’s individual claims or the country information submitted on his behalf.
Mr Justice Eagar ruled on 17 September 2015 that the appeal must be reconsidered by a different tribunal member. The case was heard as a “telescoped” judicial review. The court granted leave and quashed the decision; it did not decide whether the child qualified for refugee status.
The child, identified as K.K., was represented in the proceedings by his mother and next friend, M.M.K. His application sought to overturn the tribunal’s 23 January 2013 decision affirming a recommendation that he not be declared a refugee.
The claims advanced for K.K. included risks if he were left without parental care, including after his mother’s possible death from HIV/AIDS; risks connected with being a failed asylum seeker; and risks connected with his Luba ethnicity. The mother also raised concerns about the child’s health and the treatment available in the Democratic Republic of Congo. These were claims made in the asylum process, not findings by the High Court.
The tribunal had criticised the mother for introducing additional grounds after her interview and had referred to the rejection of her own asylum claim. In the judicial review, the court said the appeal grounds had raised issues separate from the mother’s claim, but the tribunal had failed to deal with them. It said the decision did not substantively address K.K.’s claims beyond the assertion that his mother had reconstructed her evidence.
The judge also found that the tribunal had not appropriately considered the country-of-origin reports relating to the child’s claims. He criticised the tribunal member’s use of information about the Minister for Justice’s refusal of the mother’s application for humanitarian leave to remain, describing that information as inappropriate and saying its use alone would be sufficient to quash the decision.
The judgment also noted that the tribunal had described K.K. as accompanied by his parents, although the case materials said his father had neither guardianship nor custody rights. The court said this appeared to show that the tribunal member had not understood the facts of the case.