The High Court dismissed a Georgian applicant’s judicial review challenge to the International Protection Appeals Tribunal’s decision to refuse an oral hearing and affirm a recommendation that he receive neither refugee nor subsidiary protection status.
The applicant claimed that he faced persecution or serious harm in Georgia after assaults by a neighbour in 2009 and 2012, which he attributed to his ethnicity. The International Protection Office found that he had not established a well-founded fear of persecution or substantial grounds for believing he would face a real risk of serious harm. It also found Georgia to be a safe country of origin.
The Tribunal decided the appeal on the papers on 18 August 2020. The applicant had requested an oral hearing, saying that he wanted to present medical documentation and address credibility concerns about his injuries. The Tribunal concluded that an oral hearing was not required in the interests of justice.
Mr Justice Charles Meenan agreed. He said negative credibility findings at first instance did not, by themselves, require an oral hearing, and accepted that the Tribunal had considered the request under the relevant statutory provisions and authorities.
The applicant also challenged the Tribunal’s assessment of the risk he faced in Georgia, the availability of state protection, and a medical report. The High Court stressed that judicial review was not an appeal on the evidence: its task was to examine the Tribunal’s decision-making process, not substitute its own findings. It concluded that the Tribunal’s credibility assessment was not irrational or unreasonable.
The Tribunal had noted that the applicant did not identify the alleged attacker, despite being assured the protection process was confidential, and had not provided an adequate explanation for withholding the name. It also questioned why the alleged assaults had not been reported to police during the period before he left Georgia in 2019. The High Court found that the Tribunal had applied the relevant provisions on credibility and safe-country assessment.
The medical report, dated 13 February 2020, described scarring and previous injuries to the applicant’s right upper limb as consistent with a possible prior fracture. The judge accepted the Tribunal’s view that the brief report had limited evidential value: it did not materially explain what caused the injury or assess whether it was consistent with the applicant’s account.
The court dismissed the claim. It listed the matter for 15 March 2022 to address costs; the judgment did not determine costs.