The High Court has quashed a decision refusing refugee status to an Ethiopian man and sent his case back to the Refugee Appeals Tribunal for consideration by a different member. The court found that the tribunal should have assessed the likely risks he might face if returned to Ethiopia as an army deserter, a whistleblower and a failed asylum seeker.
The judgment, delivered by Mr Justice Barr on 28 March 2014, concerned a judicial review of the tribunal’s 2010 decision. The tribunal had rejected the applicant’s account of events in Ethiopia, while giving him the benefit of the doubt that he may have been in the army.
The applicant claimed he had passed information to the opposition All Amhara Party about an alleged land allocation to Sudan, and that he fled after a meeting where shots were fired. He also claimed he would face persecution if returned because he had deserted the army and had sought asylum in Ireland. These were claims in his asylum case, not findings by the High Court.
The respondents argued that the tribunal was entitled to reject his narrative and that his possible army service and asylum application did not, by themselves, establish a risk of persecution. They said the cases cited by the applicant involved independent risks arising from ethnic identity, which had not been claimed as a basis for persecution in this case.
The High Court agreed that the tribunal was entitled to reject the applicant’s narrative. But it held that, having accepted he may have been in the army, the tribunal should have considered the evidence about four air force pilots who were sentenced to death in absentia after deserting and seeking asylum in Israel. It should also have addressed the potential risks associated with the applicant’s claimed whistleblowing and failed asylum seeker status.
The court extended the time for bringing the judicial review, finding the applicant was not at fault for the delay and that the respondents had not been materially prejudiced. It then quashed the tribunal decision and remitted the case to a different tribunal member. The judgment did not itself decide whether the applicant was entitled to refugee status or determine what would happen if he were returned to Ethiopia.