The High Court has quashed a decision refusing an Afghan applicant refugee status and subsidiary protection, finding that the Tribunal assessed his account of being captured by the Taliban through speculation about how the group would act.
Mr Justice Barry O’Donnell ruled that the credibility assessment was unlawful and sufficiently important to undermine the overall decision. The case will return to a differently constituted Tribunal for further consideration. The High Court did not decide whether the applicant’s account was true or make findings on the underlying facts.
The applicant said he worked as an English teacher and was threatened, assaulted and later taken by armed men he believed were Taliban members in August 2021. He said he was told to decide within five days whether to join them, then released. The Tribunal rejected that account, reasoning that the men would not have released him and given him an opportunity to escape.
The High Court found that this reasoning depended on the decision-maker imagining how the Taliban would behave, rather than properly analysing the evidence and relevant country information. The judge said the Tribunal noted an absence of reports about people being given time to decide whether to work with the Taliban, but did not adequately account for the limits on information gathering in Afghanistan or the instability following the Taliban takeover. Information about extrajudicial killings did not, by itself, establish that the applicant would not have been given time to consider the demand.
The court rejected the applicant’s challenge to the Tribunal’s assessment of documents relating to his claimed English-teaching work. The Tribunal had identified inconsistencies in dates and stamps and sought explanations; the High Court found its assessment lawful. The court also found the Tribunal was entitled to regard the evidence about the applicant’s mother as limited and inconsistent.
The judge expressed concern that the Tribunal’s analysis of future risk from being perceived as “westernised” did not sufficiently engage with country information, given the applicant’s English proficiency and time spent outside Afghanistan. The judgment records that concern but does not identify it as the ground on which the decision was quashed.
The applicant had also challenged the timing of his judicial review. The court found that notification on 11 September 2023 supported the view that proceedings were in time. Alternatively, it granted a short extension, citing the prompt steps taken by the applicant’s representatives, the importance of the issues and the absence of demonstrated prejudice.
The court ordered the Tribunal decision quashed and the matter remitted. It gave a provisional view that the applicant should receive the costs of the judicial review and listed the matter for final orders on 26 June 2025.