The High Court has refused an applicant leave to challenge a Refugee Appeals Tribunal decision that affirmed a recommendation against granting refugee status to her and her son.
In a judgment delivered on 13 February 2017, Ms Justice O’Regan said the tribunal’s decision was dated 16 November 2016. The applicant sought leave for judicial review, arguing that the tribunal misapplied Regulation 5(2) of the European Communities (Eligibility for Protection) Regulations 2006 and failed to weigh relevant information or took irrelevant considerations into account.
The tribunal had considered a SPIRASI medical report. It noted that the report could not identify who caused the applicant’s injuries or definitively establish the source of her depression, anxiety and post-traumatic stress disorder. The report also said those symptoms were not specific to torture and could have other contributing factors.
The applicant’s submissions argued that the report had not been given proper weight. Justice O’Regan rejected that argument, finding that the tribunal had considered and accepted the report. She said it was within the tribunal’s jurisdiction to find the applicant’s credibility wanting despite the report, and described that conclusion as rational and reasonable.
On Regulation 5(2), the court referred to earlier High Court judgments addressing the provision. It said the rule requires consideration of whether compelling reasons arising from past persecution warrant protection only where past persecution has been accepted and there is also a finding of no real risk of further persecution on return.
Because the tribunal had made no finding that the applicant had suffered past persecution, the provision was not engaged. The judge said that even if the tribunal’s consideration of it had been incorrect, no injustice had been caused. The application for leave was refused. The judgment records a refusal of leave; it does not set out a final determination after a full judicial review hearing.