The High Court refused an Ethiopian applicant leave to seek judicial review of a Refugee Appeals Tribunal decision affirming a recommendation that he should not receive refugee status.
The application challenged the Tribunal’s negative decision of 14 June 2007. The applicant argued that the Tribunal member had not adequately addressed nine grounds set out in his paper appeal. The respondents submitted that the decision referred to the appeal grounds and that a decision-maker need not repeat every argument.
The Tribunal’s decision cited inconsistencies in the applicant’s accounts of his political activity, detention and reasons for leaving Ethiopia. Among its concerns, it noted that he had not mentioned selling opposition newspapers in his questionnaire, had described himself there as a Kinijit member but later as a supporter, and had said at an initial interview that he had no problems in Ethiopia. The Tribunal also considered country information and said it could not verify the medical certificate submitted.
Justice Clark reviewed the grounds of appeal in the context of the Tribunal’s decision. She noted that several grounds were general legal submissions or depended on the applicant’s disputed account being accepted. The appeal had been decided on the papers, and no country information or supporting documents had accompanied the Notice of Appeal.
The court also considered the applicant’s explanations that he had been mentally unwell or unstable when completing the questionnaire. At interview, he had been told that a medical report linking inconsistencies to a specific condition would be needed. No such report was submitted with the appeal.
The judge said a Tribunal member must consider the documents filed in a paper appeal and address key issues, but need not expressly list every argument or document. After reviewing the grounds, she found no evidence that the Tribunal member had disregarded the Notice of Appeal and considered the Tribunal’s decision carefully reasoned.
The court’s ruling was limited to whether the applicant had shown substantial grounds for leave to pursue judicial review. It did not grant leave or quash the Tribunal’s asylum decision. Justice Clark refused leave.