The High Court has quashed three Refugee Appeals Tribunal decisions refusing refugee status to a family from Pakistan and remitted their case for a fresh hearing before a different tribunal member.
In a judgment delivered on 18 February 2015, Ms Justice Stewart said the paper-only appeal lacked the care and caution required when the applicants had no opportunity to appear and explain perceived gaps or inconsistencies in their claims. The court granted leave and orders of certiorari quashing the tribunal member’s decisions in respect of all three applicants. It did not decide whether they qualified for refugee status.
The applicants, anonymised in the judgment as S.H., I.H. and their minor daughter S.K.F., had sought judicial review of the tribunal’s decisions affirming recommendations that they not be declared refugees. Their applications arose from allegations of threats and assaults by the wife’s family in Pakistan, including an attempted abduction of their daughter. Those claims were not findings made by the High Court.
The family said they arrived in Ireland in August 2009 on tourist visas and applied for asylum in March 2010. The Refugee Applications Commissioner found that the husband had failed, without reasonable cause, to apply as soon as reasonably practicable after arriving. That finding meant the appeals to the tribunal were decided on the papers, without an oral hearing.
Justice Stewart found that the tribunal’s adverse credibility conclusions did not adequately engage with several explanations the applicants had given. These included why they had not left Pakistan earlier, why they had returned to the Faisalabad area, and their account of seeking police help. The judgment also said the tribunal had not properly explained its treatment of medical certificates submitted by the applicants.
The court accepted that one criticism concerning the parents’ initial failure to mention an alleged eye injury to their daughter was open to the tribunal member. But it found broader problems with the reasoning. In particular, the tribunal member relied on a concern about the family’s account of property documents that, according to the judgment, had not been raised by the Commissioner. The court said fairness required the applicants be given an opportunity to respond to a new concern of that kind.
On relocation within Pakistan, the judgment said the tribunal had relied on general statements about the country’s size and the husband’s education. It referred to authority requiring a tribunal to identify a proposed area, consider conditions there and ask whether relocation would be reasonable for the applicants.
The case was remitted for a de novo hearing before a different tribunal member. The judgment did not determine the truth of the family’s allegations or the ultimate outcome of their refugee claims.