The High Court has refused an Iranian asylum applicant’s request to quash a Refugee Appeals Tribunal decision rejecting his appeal, finding that the tribunal’s treatment of concerns about his identity card did not require the decision to be set aside.
The judicial review concerned the tribunal’s decision of 11 January 2008, which upheld a recommendation that the applicant should not be declared a refugee. The court considered whether the tribunal member breached fair procedures and section 16(8) of the Refugee Act 1996 by failing to disclose the nature and source of information used in assessing the applicant’s identity card and other aspects of his account.
The applicant said he was an Iranian Kurd from the Sardasht region who feared persecution because of his support for the Hekmatist Communist Party of Iran. He said state agents searched and burned his home after he took part in a demonstration, and that his brother and uncle were arrested. He submitted an identity card that he said his aunt had recovered from the burned house.
At the appeal hearing, the tribunal member questioned the card’s authenticity, describing it as apparently fake and pointing to a hole and biro marks over the date. The applicant attributed its condition to the fire. The member also relied on her previous experience viewing Iranian identity documents. After the hearing, the applicant sought access to a comparator card and asked for his own card to be examined. The tribunal provided a forensic examiner’s report, which concluded that the card appeared not to be genuine, while noting that no genuine specimen had been available for comparison.
The applicant argued that the tribunal member had to disclose the source of the genuine Iranian card used for comparison. The respondents said she had explained that her view came from her experience, had raised her concerns at the hearing, and had offered the applicant’s representatives an opportunity to inspect a comparator card. They also relied on the forensic report and the applicant’s opportunity to make further submissions.
Justice M. H. Clark found that the tribunal member had disclosed the basis of her doubts and given the applicant an opportunity to respond. The court treated her assessment as resting primarily on the submitted card’s appearance and physical condition, as well as her previous experience. It found no merit in the separate complaints about questions on local geography and earthquakes, characterising them as testing the applicant’s knowledge rather than relying on undisclosed material information.
The court concluded that any failure to provide a written indication about the tribunal member’s previous experience was a technical procedural flaw remedied by the fair procedures applied. It held that the tribunal’s refusal of the appeal was not so flawed as to require certiorari. The relief sought was refused; the court did not itself determine the applicant’s refugee status.