The High Court has refused an application to quash a Refugee Appeals Tribunal decision rejecting a Pakistani man’s refugee claim, finding that the Tribunal’s conclusions on internal relocation and state protection were sound. The court accepted that the Tribunal made an error concerning the applicant’s explanation for not seeking asylum in Turkey, but said that error did not invalidate the decision as a whole.
The judicial review concerned a Tribunal decision of 29 June 2010. The applicant said he ran a music and DVD shop in Haroonabad, Pakistan, and was threatened over the business. He said four men abducted and beat him in June 2009, after which he was treated in hospital for four days and learned that his shop had been destroyed by a bomb. These were his claims before the Tribunal, not findings by the High Court that the events occurred as described.
The Tribunal had found that he could relocate within Pakistan, identifying Karachi, Lahore and Islamabad. The applicant argued that country information showed Taliban networks were active in those areas. The High Court held that, even if the Taliban operated in various parts of Pakistan, there was no evidence that this applicant would face persecution in those cities because he had owned a CD shop. The court also noted his evidence that he had lived safely with a friend in Gujarat for several months after leaving his home area.
The applicant also argued that the Tribunal had failed to give adequate reasons for preferring country information suggesting police protection was available. The High Court found that the material before the Tribunal supported its conclusion that Pakistani police took action against extremists and that state protection would be available to the applicant.
On credibility, the court considered it reasonable for the Tribunal to take account of the applicant’s failure to provide documents relating to the shop or his hospital stay, despite saying he would try to obtain hospital records.
The High Court agreed that the Tribunal was wrong to rely on section 11B of the Refugee Act 1996 in assessing his explanation for not claiming asylum in Turkey, where he had not claimed that Ireland was the first safe country he reached. But it held that the error was not enough to overturn the decision, given the separate findings on relocation and state protection. Mr Justice Barr therefore refused certiorari. The ruling reviewed the lawfulness of the Tribunal’s decision; it did not grant refugee status or decide the underlying claim afresh.