The High Court has quashed a Refugee Appeals Tribunal decision rejecting an Ethiopian woman’s appeal for refugee status, finding that the tribunal did not give cogent reasons for rejecting documentary and medical evidence supporting her account. The case must be reconsidered by a different tribunal member.
In a judgment delivered on 4 February 2015, Ms Justice Stewart granted certiorari quashing the tribunal’s decision of 27 July 2010 and ordered the matter remitted for de novo consideration. The court did not decide the refugee claim itself.
The applicant, identified in the judgment as J. G. (Ethiopia), said she was Oromo and had been a member of the Oromo Liberation Front since 1991. She alleged that Ethiopian state forces detained and mistreated her in 1998, and that she was arrested and detained again in 2008. She said she fled through Kenya and Sudan before arriving in Ireland in July 2008.
The Refugee Applications Commissioner rejected her asylum application in April 2009, making adverse credibility findings. The tribunal later rejected her appeal, relying on findings about her answers concerning release from custody, her account of being asked to lead captors to OLF fighters, her failure to seek asylum in Kenya or Sudan, and her demeanour at the hearing.
The High Court examined letters submitted in support of the applicant’s claimed OLF involvement and Oromo identity, country information about Ethiopia, and a SPIRASI medical report. The report recorded a diagnosis of depressive disorder and some symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder; its author said the applicant’s physical and psychological findings were consistent with her account of beatings and torture.
Justice Stewart noted that the tribunal had said the letters did not indicate when the applicant joined the OLF or what she did in the organisation. The judgment found that statement factually incorrect, pointing to a letter from the OLF’s North American office that addressed her membership and activities.
The court also found no reasoned decision explaining why the tribunal rejected the SPIRASI findings. It accepted the applicant’s submission that the decision gave no indication that the tribunal had allowed for her reported depression and PTSD symptoms when assessing her presentation and credibility. The judgment said demeanour findings require particular care in asylum cases.
The court concluded that the tribunal had not provided cogent or reasoned grounds for rejecting the documentary and medical evidence. It therefore quashed the 2010 decision and ordered a fresh assessment by a different tribunal member.