The High Court has refused an application by an anonymised Congolese woman to quash a decision refusing her refugee status, citing a procedural issue with her grounding affidavit and rejecting her challenge to the Tribunal’s approach to country-of-origin information.
The judicial review concerned a Refugee Appeals Tribunal decision dated 28 February 2013, which affirmed the Refugee Applications Commissioner’s refusal of refugee status. The case was heard on a telescoped basis by Ms Justice Stewart, who delivered judgment on 29 January 2016.
The applicant said she feared persecution by state agents in the Democratic Republic of the Congo because of her political opinion. She alleged that, after an attempted coup in September 2010, she was arrested in February 2011, questioned about her employer and detained for 33 days. She said she was raped and sexually abused in custody, escaped with help from soldiers and eventually travelled to Ireland. The Tribunal rejected her account as not credible, citing, among other matters, the delay between the coup and her arrest, the alleged assistance by soldiers, and her travel through France without seeking asylum there.
In the High Court, the applicant argued that the Tribunal should have considered country-of-origin information before making adverse credibility findings. She also raised other alleged flaws in the Tribunal’s assessment. The respondents argued that the applicant’s affidavit did not comply with court rules governing affidavits where a deponent may not understand an official language, and opposed the claim concerning the Tribunal’s use of country information.
Justice Stewart found it arguable that the affidavit had not been filed in accordance with the applicable rules. The court said more should have been done to establish the applicant’s understanding of English and recorded that her counsel acknowledged this had not been done. The judge considered the application failed on this procedural issue.
The court also addressed the country-information issue. Following the approach in Imafu and subsequent cases, the judge held that a decision-maker who makes a valid, independent finding that an essential condition for relief has not been met need not go on to consider other conditions. The court declined to follow a contrary approach in a separate High Court decision and said the law was clear, so a reference to the Court of Justice of the European Union was not warranted.
The court refused the relief sought on both the procedural issue and the challenge to the Tribunal’s method. It did not grant certiorari or refer a question to the EU court. Costs were left for counsel to address.