The High Court has refused an Algerian woman’s application for judicial review of a decision denying her eligibility for subsidiary protection. The case challenged the International Protection Appeals Tribunal’s October 2016 decision, which affirmed a recommendation that she should not receive that protection.
Mr Justice David Keane delivered judgment on 21 June 2019. The applicant sought an order quashing the tribunal decision and an injunction preventing further steps on her international protection claim. The court refused the judicial review application, rejecting both grounds of challenge. It did not quash the tribunal decision or grant the requested injunction.
The applicant’s underlying account included a claim that she had left Algeria without permission and would face imprisonment or other ill-treatment if returned. The tribunal had found her account of threats from her family not credible; that finding was not challenged in the judicial review. The High Court also held that the applicant’s short affidavit could not be used because it was sworn in English and the jurat did not record that it had been read and understood through translation. The judge said little turned on that issue in this case.
On the first ground, the applicant argued that the tribunal had wrongly found no substantial grounds to believe she risked inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment under Algeria’s law on irregular exit. The tribunal had considered country information describing a possible prison term of two to six months, a fine, or both, and had concluded that the law’s application did not establish a real risk of serious harm to her, particularly given the absence of any link to terrorist groups.
The High Court rejected the challenge. It said the applicant’s general credibility had not been accepted, and her unsupported statement that she left unlawfully could not be treated as established simply because the tribunal had not expressly disputed it. The judge also found that the tribunal had addressed the risk and given a reason for distinguishing an earlier tribunal decision involving a child born in Ireland.
The second ground concerned the risk of indiscriminate violence in an internal armed conflict. The applicant argued that the tribunal had applied the wrong approach. The judge found no evidence that it had used an incorrect legal test. Given the unchallenged credibility findings, the applicant had not shown that she was personally affected by particular circumstances; she therefore had to establish an exceptionally high level of indiscriminate violence. The tribunal had found that she had not done so, and assessing the weight of country information was its role, the court said.