The High Court has quashed a Refugee Appeals Tribunal decision refusing refugee status to an anonymised Chinese applicant and sent the case back for a fresh determination. The court said the Tribunal had ignored most of the country of origin information submitted in support of the claim. It did not decide whether the applicant was a refugee.
Mr Justice Barr gave judgment on 10 December 2014 in judicial review proceedings brought by S.J.L. The challenge concerned a Tribunal decision dated 27 January 2009. The applicant’s wife had a separate judicial review application, which the judge said he had already decided.
The couple said they had two children in China without official permission and that the wife was forcibly sterilised in 1999. They said the applicant risked sterilisation if returned, as well as fines and discriminatory treatment affecting employment and access to medical and educational benefits. These were claims made in their asylum proceedings, not findings made in this judicial review.
The Refugee Appeals Tribunal refused their appeals on the papers, without oral evidence. In reviewing the applicant’s case, Mr Justice Barr said it was arguable that parents of more than one child born in China without permission could form a particular social group for refugee-law purposes. He did not make a final determination on that question or on whether the applicant faced persecution.
The judge found that the Tribunal appeared to have considered only a 2002 UK Home Office report concerning Fujian province, despite a larger body of country information having been submitted. He said submitted country information must be considered and addressed in the decision, including where it is rejected, with reasons given. The remaining material had been ignored, requiring the case to be reconsidered in light of all the information submitted.
The judgment also addressed adverse credibility findings concerning matters including the unpaid balance of fines, the couple’s journey to Ireland and the delay in seeking asylum. Mr Justice Barr accepted that the Tribunal had evidence on which it could make adverse findings, but concluded those findings concerned peripheral matters. He said the account of the couple’s children and the wife’s sterilisation had been supported by case-specific documents.
The court’s order was limited: it quashed the Tribunal’s 27 January 2009 decision and directed a fresh determination in light of the country information submitted. It did not grant refugee status or make a final finding on the applicant’s protection claim.