The High Court has refused a mother and two children’s application to quash a decision refusing them refugee status and subsidiary protection. Mr Justice Cian Ferriter ruled that the International Protection Appeals Tribunal (IPAT) had a valid evidential basis for its credibility findings and acted lawfully in treating the children’s claims as dependent on their mother’s.
The applicants, identified in the judgment as KT, X and Y, sought judicial review of IPAT’s decision of 29 April 2020. The court was reviewing the lawfulness of that decision, not deciding the merits of the protection claims afresh.
KT, who is from Georgia, said she feared returning because of threats connected to her former partner, DT. Her account included threats to her and the children after DT left Georgia, including threats of kidnapping. She also raised his car crash, alleged demands for compensation, and possible political links to the United National Movement. These were claims in her protection application, not findings by the High Court that the events occurred.
The court examined how her account changed during the protection process. In her first interview, she described debts to banks and moneylenders. In her questionnaire, she added the car crash, a high-ranking police official, political activity, and alleged threats by police officers. At later interviews she gave differing accounts of who was harassing the family and of her own involvement with the United National Movement. At the tribunal hearing, she described two men unknown to her and said they had threatened that she might be hit by a car.
Justice Ferriter held that these differences gave IPAT a valid basis to find her account lacked credibility. He said the tribunal could consider that her evidence about some events was second-hand, alongside the inconsistencies and lack of detail. The court also noted that the applicants’ representative had asked IPAT to disregard a court document concerning DT’s car crash; IPAT did so. The High Court did not substitute its own view of the claims for the tribunal’s assessment.
The challenge also argued that the children’s risks should have been assessed separately, particularly in light of medical records showing X had anxiety and panic attacks and had been referred for psychological support. IPAT had said the records were consistent with KT’s account that X experienced stress, giving her credibility a slight positive impact. Justice Ferriter found that the records did not establish the source of X’s difficulties or identify a distinct risk to him separate from the risks KT described. He held that IPAT could treat the children’s claims as dependent on hers.
The court refused the relief sought. The tribunal’s decision therefore remained in place, including its refusal of refugee and subsidiary protection declarations.