The High Court has refused a Pakistani applicant’s judicial review challenge to a decision denying him refugee status and subsidiary protection. The court held that the International Protection Appeals Tribunal had given reasons for its concerns about his credibility and had not made the errors alleged. It also said that, even if there had been flaws in the two challenged concerns, the Tribunal’s other six credibility concerns would have outweighed them.
The challenge concerned the Tribunal’s decision of 29 June 2020. The applicant argued that the Tribunal mishandled a hospital letter submitted with his appeal and made an irrational finding about his account of his father’s involvement in events in Pakistan. He had withdrawn a separate challenge to another credibility finding.
The applicant said the appeal to the Tribunal was a full de novo appeal and that it should have considered the hospital document’s contents. The letter, dated 8 September 2019, was submitted after the initial refusal recommendation. At an earlier interview, the applicant had said he had no hospital report or photographs. In his initial questionnaire, he referred to education documents he could obtain but not medical documents.
Justice Bolger rejected the claim that the Tribunal had disregarded the letter because documents from Pakistan could be forged. She found that the Tribunal considered the document and explained why its late submission, alongside the applicant’s earlier answers, raised credibility concerns. She noted that the Tribunal had not found the letter to be false, and that it was not central to the applicant’s case or mentioned in his questionnaire or section 35 interview.
The father issue arose from the applicant’s account that his father was present during a heated discussion with his cousin before an alleged assault, while the applicant later said he told his father the “whole story” after the assault. The applicant first mentioned his father’s presence at the discussion during the Tribunal hearing. The court found an evidential basis for the Tribunal’s concern about the apparent inconsistency and held that its reasons were adequate.
The court refused the reliefs sought. Justice Bolger’s indicative view was that the respondents were entitled to costs because the applicant had not succeeded. She listed the matter for a mention on 18 May 2022 so the parties could make submissions on costs and the final orders. The judgment does not record the final costs order.