The High Court has rejected a Kenyan man’s challenge to the Minister’s decision refusing him refugee status and refused permission to amend his case to challenge the Refugee Appeals Tribunal directly.
In a judgment delivered on 6 June 2013, Mr Justice Mac Eochaidh said the Tribunal’s decision, as adopted by the Minister, was lawful. The court also said that adding the Tribunal at the hearing would require an extension of the statutory 14-day period, and that the amendment would serve no purpose given its conclusion on the decision’s lawfulness.
The applicant had sought asylum at Dublin Airport in August 2005. He said he had joined the Mungiki group in 2002, left in 2004 after it was outlawed in Kenya, and feared retribution. His application was refused, and the Tribunal rejected his appeal after an oral hearing in April 2008. The Minister refused refugee status in February 2009, adopting the Tribunal’s recommendation and reasons.
At the hearing, the applicant pursued complaints that the Tribunal repeatedly called Mungiki “Kumgiki”; failed to address his evidence that his cousin had been murdered; and did not specify the country information supporting relocation to Mombasa or show that relocation was reasonable in his circumstances. His counsel initially challenged only the Minister’s decision, then sought leave to amend the proceedings to include the Tribunal’s decision.
The judge said the misspelling was an error concerning an undisputed name, but had no effect on the decision. He was willing to assume it was an error of fact, but found it immaterial.
On the cousin’s alleged murder, the judge noted that the applicant’s appeal had not specifically challenged an earlier credibility assessment concerning the circumstances of the death. He said a decision-maker need not address every piece of evidence where the basis for rejecting credibility can be understood. The Tribunal had fundamentally rejected the applicant’s credibility, and the judge was not persuaded that its failure to mention the alleged murder of his relatives caused any prejudice.
The court also rejected the argument about protection and relocation. It distinguished another Kenyan asylum case in which the Tribunal had accepted the applicant’s account and considered extensive country information. Here, the Tribunal rejected the applicant’s credibility, no country information had been submitted, and the judge said the Tribunal had made its own inquiries and put the issues of state protection and relocation to the applicant at the hearing.
The court dismissed the complaints about the Minister’s decision, refused leave to seek judicial review, and refused the proposed amendment to add the Tribunal. The judgment did not grant refugee status or overturn the Tribunal’s negative recommendation.