The High Court has refused an application to quash a Refugee Appeals Tribunal decision rejecting an asylum appeal, finding that the tribunal had given reasons for its conclusions on state protection and credibility.
In a judgment delivered on 3 July 2015, Mr Justice Eagar said the tribunal’s decision was reasonable. The case was a judicial review of the tribunal’s decision to affirm a recommendation that the applicant not be declared a refugee. The court refused certiorari; it did not conduct a fresh assessment of the asylum claim.
The applicant, identified in the judgment as A.C. (Bangladesh), said she had faced harassment and threats from a man named Ponir, and alleged that he kidnapped and raped her in December 2010. She said her father had contacted police after the alleged rape but they did not act because Ponir was influential. The judgment records these as claims made by the applicant, not findings by the High Court.
The tribunal had cited concerns about the applicant’s evidence, including differences between her account of her education and information in a visa application made in August 2010. The applicant’s counsel argued that the tribunal had misunderstood her core claim and relied selectively on country of origin information. Counsel also said the visa application had been submitted by an agent and contained false information. The State argued that the tribunal’s assessment was open to it and that the High Court should not substitute its own credibility findings.
Justice Eagar rejected the challenges to the tribunal’s use of country information and its understanding of the claim. He considered it reasonable for the tribunal to take account of the visa application’s date and contents, which preceded the alleged kidnapping and rape. The court concluded that the tribunal had identified routes for pursuing a complaint if police failed to investigate and had explained its credibility concerns.
The High Court’s role was to review whether the decision-making process was legally sound, not to reassess credibility. Having found the tribunal’s reasons adequate and its decision reasonable, the court refused the application for certiorari.