The High Court quashed a Refugee Appeals Tribunal decision rejecting a Nepalese man’s refugee appeal, finding that the tribunal had failed to give adequate reasons for key credibility findings and had not properly addressed his core claim. The matter was remitted for a new hearing before a different tribunal member.
Mr Justice Eagar delivered the judgment on 28 July 2015 in judicial review proceedings. The applicant, identified as B.L. (Nepal), sought certiorari to quash the tribunal’s 2 November 2012 decision, which had affirmed the recommendation that he should not be declared a refugee.
The applicant said he feared persecution linked to his brother, whom he described as a prominent Maoist killed by government forces, and to his own refusal to join the Maoists. He said he had lived in India for about six years before travelling to the UK and then Ireland. The tribunal rejected his claim, citing concerns including his time in India without reported threats, his UK stay without seeking asylum, a passport issued by Nepalese authorities, inconsistencies about dates, and the fact that family members remained in Nepal.
The court found errors in how the tribunal assessed those matters. It had not explained why it rejected the applicant’s account of why he did not seek asylum in the UK, or properly considered his evidence about obtaining a passport and why that did not mean he was safe from the authorities. It also failed to explain why it rejected his explanation for confusion over dates.
Mr Justice Eagar said the tribunal had treated “fleeing persecution” as a requirement of refugee status, although that was not a requirement of the Refugee Convention. He also found that the tribunal had not adequately explained its rejection of the applicant’s core claim concerning his alleged fear of the Maoists. The court said the fact that the applicant’s wife, children and brother remained in Nepal without apparent difficulty did not, by itself, mean that he was not at risk.
The court concluded that the tribunal had failed to comply with Article 5 of the European Communities (Eligibility for Protection) Regulations 2006, including its requirements to consider relevant statements, documentation and the applicant’s personal circumstances. It granted leave and quashed the tribunal decision, directing that the appeal be reheard de novo by a different member.
The judge also noted that the court had not received a formal record of the tribunal hearing. He raised a concern about the absence of a complete record but did not reject the tribunal decision on that basis in this case.