The High Court refused an anonymised applicant leave to seek judicial review of a decision affirming the refusal of his asylum application, finding no substantial grounds to argue that the Refugee Appeals Tribunal’s credibility assessment was invalid.
In a judgment delivered on 31 July 2007, Mr Justice Michael Peart said the application was for leave only. The applicant had to show substantial grounds for contending that the Tribunal decision should be quashed. The court was not deciding a full judicial review hearing.
The applicant, a Burundian national, had claimed asylum on grounds of race and political opinion. He said his father was killed by Burundian soldiers and that he feared persecution if returned. The Refugee Applications Commissioner recommended that he not be declared a refugee. On appeal, the Tribunal affirmed that recommendation, finding his account implausible and seriously lacking in credibility.
The applicant argued that the Tribunal relied on inconsistencies without giving him a fair opportunity to address its concerns. Among the matters raised were differing accounts of whether his family returned voluntarily from Tanzania to Burundi, the omission of siblings from an initial form, and discrepancies about his mother’s visits to his imprisoned father. He also challenged the Tribunal’s treatment of medical reports concerning injuries he said he had suffered.
The judge rejected the claims that the Tribunal had materially misstated the medical evidence or was not entitled to consider the inconsistencies about the siblings and the family’s return. He said the decision-maker could weigh those matters together when assessing credibility. The court also rejected the argument that the decision’s September date showed it had been prepared long after the May appeal hearing; the wording of the decision indicated it had been prepared immediately after the hearing, with delay possibly occurring in typing or signing.
Justice Peart said credibility was primarily for the Tribunal member who heard the applicant’s oral evidence, including assessment of how he answered questions. He found no clear and significant factual error and said the alleged errors were insubstantial or non-existent. The judge considered the applicant’s account unreliable in material respects and said the Tribunal was not required to examine the claimed fear in greater depth after finding the account not credible.
The court did not decide the application for an extension of time. It refused leave to seek judicial review. The ruling was therefore a decision on permission to bring the challenge, not a substantive judicial review judgment.