The High Court refused an application by a Zimbabwean man for leave to challenge a Refugee Appeals Tribunal decision that he was not a refugee, finding no substantial grounds to quash it.
In a judgment delivered on 6 February 2017, Ms Justice O’Regan said the tribunal’s findings were rational and within its remit. The application sought certiorari of the tribunal’s decision of 3 August 2016. The court refused the application; it did not grant leave to bring a judicial review challenge or quash the tribunal’s decision.
The applicant, identified in the judgment as SZ, was described as a 50-year-old man from Zimbabwe. He claimed persecution because of his political opinion and Ndebele background. He said that in about March 2012 miners sought to work on his property, and that he and his sister refused permission. The judgment records that he fell and broke a finger during the ensuing disorder, reported the matter to the authorities without success, and later complained at the Mines Office with his sister. The court said matters calmed down after that visit.
He also said he had refused requests to display Zanu-PF propaganda in his taxi and to carry Zanu-PF passengers at half price. The judgment records his account that mining took place about 15 metres from his house and caused cracks in its wall. He also complained that he waited four hours at hospital after breaking his finger.
The tribunal had found there was no clear or coherent evidence that he suffered because he refused the party’s requests, was deliberately sidelined at hospital, or experienced past discrimination based on ethnicity. It also found no clear evidence that he had been targeted for his political beliefs or Ndebele background. Those were the tribunal’s findings, which the High Court reviewed at the leave stage.
Justice O’Regan held that the Refugee Appeals Tribunal could reassess findings made by the Refugee Applications Commissioner in a full appeal involving an oral hearing. She said that, in the absence of past persecution, there was no basis for a forward-looking test. The court also accepted the tribunal’s conclusion that the evidence about mining did not establish persecution, which the judgment described as requiring a severe violation of basic human rights.
The court concluded that the tribunal’s decision was clear and not irrational, and refused the application for leave.