The High Court has quashed part of a Refugee Appeals Tribunal decision refusing refugee status to an anonymised Sudanese applicant, finding that the tribunal failed to assess whether he might face future persecution if returned to Sudan.
In a judgment delivered on 12 March 2013, Mr Justice McDermott said the applicant had established a substantial ground for judicial review on that issue. The court extended the time for bringing the proceedings, then ruled that the tribunal’s appeal decision of 5 December 2008 should be quashed only to the extent that it omitted a recent assessment of prospective risk.
The applicant claimed to be from the Darfur region, a member of the Marareet tribe, and a survivor of an attack, detention and torture. The tribunal had rejected his asylum appeal, finding his account of capture, detention and treatment not credible. It also raised concerns about his account of travel through Greece and France and the absence of travel documents.
The High Court upheld the tribunal’s handling of those credibility issues. It said the tribunal had assessed the available evidence as a whole, and that the medical report submitted on the applicant’s behalf did not connect the marks observed on his wrist and foot to the alleged ill-treatment. The court also found no error in the tribunal’s consideration of earlier tribunal decisions submitted in support of the appeal.
However, the High Court said the tribunal had not determined that the applicant was not from North Darfur or Sudan. It had noted his knowledge of Sudan and that he might fear returning. Given that the applicant’s claimed origin and ethnicity remained possible, the court found that the tribunal needed to consider future risk even though it had rejected his account of past persecution.
The appeal was remitted to the tribunal, with the court recommending that the same tribunal member consider the matter through a supplementary decision, without reopening the oral hearing. The order was limited to the missing prospective-risk assessment; the High Court found no other error of law in the tribunal’s decision.