The High Court has refused an Algerian woman’s application to quash a Refugee Appeals Tribunal decision rejecting her asylum appeal on credibility grounds. Ms Justice Faherty ruled on 22 September 2015 that no substantial grounds had been established for the relief sought.
The applicant, whose identity is anonymised in the judgment, claimed that Algerian authorities had targeted her because of her connection to a university lecturer who gave her files to keep. She said police were seeking the files, that her brother was arrested and tortured while she was away from the family home, and that she feared persecution if returned to Algeria. These were her claims in the asylum process, not findings made by the High Court.
The Tribunal rejected her appeal in January 2012, citing contradictions between her hearing evidence and earlier accounts, as well as aspects it considered implausible. In the judicial review, the applicant challenged the credibility findings and argued, among other things, that the Tribunal had not properly addressed country of origin information. Her counsel also argued that perceived inconsistencies should have been put to her during the hearing. The respondents said the discrepancies were substantial and went to her core account.
The court found no procedural unfairness in the Tribunal’s treatment of the inconsistencies. It upheld the findings concerning the applicant’s core claim, including discrepancies about her political involvement, when and how she received the files, and how long she kept them. The judge said the Tribunal was entitled to assess differences between the hearing evidence and accounts given at earlier stages.
The court did identify problems with two travel-related findings. It said the Tribunal was not entitled to treat it as implausible that the applicant passed through immigration using a false passport when her account was that it was an Italian passport bearing her photograph. It also found that the statutory provision concerning whether Ireland was the first safe country should not have been applied because the applicant had made no such claim. Both matters were peripheral and did not undermine the decision.
Although the Tribunal said it had considered country of origin information without explaining its assessment, the High Court concluded that the upheld findings on the applicant’s core claim meant the lack of analysis did not invalidate the decision in this case. The court had already granted an extension of time because the judicial review was filed about 19 days outside the statutory period; it accepted the applicant’s explanation that she was changing solicitors and had acted promptly to obtain new representation. The application to quash the Tribunal decision was denied.