The High Court has dismissed a Ghanaian man’s judicial review challenge to the refusal of his international protection appeal, finding that the tribunal’s decision was not shown to be irrational and that it gave adequate reasons.
The man claimed he feared being subjected to ritual killing after the death of a tribal chief. The International Protection Appeals Tribunal refused his appeal on 2 May 2019. He sought judicial review, with certiorari of the tribunal’s decision as the primary relief. The High Court granted leave to bring the proceedings in July 2019.
Justice Richard Humphreys addressed three grounds raised for the applicant: irrationality, failure to consider relevant factors, and inadequate reasons. He said irrationality was a high bar. The tribunal had relied in part on a PhD thesis introduced into evidence by the applicant. Although its findings were unfavourable to him, the court held they were open to the decision maker. The fact that the tribunal accepted the applicant’s subjective account did not prevent it from finding that his fears lacked an objective basis.
The applicant also argued that the tribunal had failed to account for the secretive nature of funeral practices in Ghana when assessing his claim. The judge noted that this had been put to the tribunal and that its decision stated all matters submitted had been considered. The applicant had not proved that the point was overlooked.
On reasons, the court found the tribunal had explained its conclusion by referring to country information that did not support the claimed risk, accounts that tribal leaders had dismissed perceptions of ritual killings, and material indicating incidents had occurred decades earlier. It had also addressed other country information submitted by the applicant and explained why it did not support his claim.
A separate question about compliance with an EU asylum qualification directive was discussed at the hearing but had not been pleaded, so the judge did not decide it.
The judgment records that the man had applied for a review under section 49(7) of the International Protection Act 2015 after his child’s birth, and that application remained outstanding at the time. The court did not decide that review. It dismissed the judicial review proceedings.