The High Court has quashed a Refugee Appeals Tribunal decision rejecting an Afghan man’s asylum appeal and ordered a new hearing before a different Tribunal member.
In a judgment delivered on 12 November 2015, Ms Justice Faherty ruled at a telescoped judicial review hearing that the applicant had made out substantial grounds for relief. The court remitted his case to the Tribunal for a de novo hearing. It did not decide whether he qualified for refugee status.
The applicant said he had been abducted by the Taliban and forced to repair vehicles, including vehicles in which bombs were being placed. He said he escaped after about six months and feared both the Taliban and Afghan authorities. He claimed neighbours had wrongly told authorities that he had joined the Taliban willingly. The Tribunal had rejected his appeal, finding his claimed fear of state persecution not objectively well-founded and that he could relocate to Kabul to avoid the Taliban.
The judge found that the Tribunal’s reasoning about the neighbours’ report was not cogent: the applicant’s account did not rule out neighbours believing the men who took him were Taliban and informing police that he had gone with them willingly.
The applicant had submitted documents said to include letters from Afghan Interior Ministry offices directing that he be handed over to the law and that his workshop be sealed. The Tribunal said it gave the documents “little weight” but did not explain why. The judge held that the letters were material to the claimed fear that authorities believed he was associated with the Taliban. If the documents were discounted, the reasons had to be stated.
The court also found that the Tribunal had not fairly weighed conflicting country information about whether an Afghan applicant could safely and reasonably relocate within the country. Some material described Kabul as relatively secure; other material, including cited UNHCR guidance, questioned whether internal relocation was generally available amid conflict, limited state protection and the reach of armed groups. The judge said the Tribunal had not explained how it resolved those conflicts. Although the Tribunal’s assessment of the applicant’s personal circumstances was not itself unreasonable, that did not cure the failure to assess risk fairly.
The judgment also criticised the Tribunal’s unclear finding that the applicant had not reasonably explained why he failed to seek asylum in another EU state during his journey. The judge said there was no requirement to seek asylum in the manner suggested, and that this peripheral finding could not by itself sustain rejection of the claim.
The order quashed the Tribunal decision and sent the matter back for a fresh hearing before a different member. The court made no asylum determination.