The High Court refused leave in a judicial review challenge to a Refugee Appeals Tribunal decision that had affirmed a recommendation to refuse refugee status to a Zimbabwean man.
The applicant sought to quash the tribunal’s decision of 24 May 2010 and have his case considered afresh by a different tribunal member. In a judgment delivered on 15 July 2015, Ms Justice Stewart held that he had not demonstrated an error or flaw in the tribunal member’s investigation. The court therefore refused leave; it did not quash the tribunal decision or order a new consideration.
The applicant said he had served in Zimbabwe’s air force and objected to a policy requiring air force members to have a farm as a statement of support for the government. He claimed he was arrested at a protest in May 2008, fled to South Africa, and later escaped after being arrested at the Zimbabwean border. He applied for asylum in Ireland in November 2009.
The Refugee Appeals Tribunal found his account not credible. Among its reasons, it considered that his return to Zimbabwe in November 2009 undermined his stated fear, and it questioned his account of being released by mistake and escaping custody. The tribunal also found it implausible that the Zimbabwean state would use resources to locate him in South Africa given his limited political profile.
In the judicial review proceedings, the applicant argued that the tribunal had not properly addressed his appeal materials, had relied on a “gut feeling” rather than objective analysis, and had not assessed his case individually. He also argued that he should have received an oral appeal hearing and that the decision-maker should have applied a forward-looking test of the risk he would face if returned.
Justice Stewart rejected the oral-hearing complaint, accepting that the decision to use a papers-only appeal had been made by the Refugee Applications Commissioner, and that the complaint could not be raised against the tribunal decision in these proceedings. She also held that where a tribunal member has rationally and reasonably found an applicant’s account not credible, the member is not obliged to carry out a hypothetical forward-looking test.
The judge agreed that the tribunal decision showed awareness of the applicant’s circumstances and that there was no evidential basis for the claim that the appeal materials had been ignored. Reading the decision as a whole, she found no demonstrated failure to meet the applicable standards.