The High Court quashed a Refugee Appeals Tribunal decision refusing a Pakistani man’s refugee claim, finding that the decision did not clearly resolve whether he had attracted the Taliban’s adverse attention. The court remitted the appeal for de novo consideration by a different tribunal member.
The applicant, identified in the judgment as G.N. [Pakistan], sought judicial review of a tribunal decision dated 29 September 2009. That decision had affirmed the Refugee Applications Commissioner’s recommendation that he not be declared a refugee. The High Court also granted an extension of 14 days for bringing the judicial review proceedings, accepting that good and sufficient reasons for the delay had been established.
The applicant’s account was that Taliban members threatened him in March 2008, later fired shots at him, and abducted his wife after his parents-in-law were killed. He said his shop was bombed and that he reported five alleged incidents to police. Those were claims before the tribunal, not findings made by the High Court.
The tribunal made adverse credibility findings, including that the applicant had not supplied documents supporting the alleged police reports. It also considered country information about Taliban violence and reasoned that the Taliban were unlikely to give him a week to explain himself if they suspected him of informing authorities. On state protection, the tribunal concluded that some protection was available in Pakistan and that the claim was not well-founded.
In the judicial review, the applicant argued that the credibility assessment relied on conjecture and that the tribunal had not properly assessed his core claim or the effectiveness of state protection. The respondents argued that the tribunal was entitled to make its credibility findings and that internal relocation was available.
The High Court held that the tribunal could take the lack of documentary evidence into account, and said this was not central to its decision. But the court found that linking general evidence of Taliban atrocities to the conclusion that the Taliban would not give the applicant time to explain himself was conjectural without a rational connection to the evidence. The court also identified an unresolved inconsistency: the tribunal relied on the alleged police reports when considering state protection, while treating the lack of supporting documents for those reports as adverse to credibility.
The court concluded that it was unclear whether the tribunal accepted that the applicant had come to the Taliban’s adverse attention or had reported the alleged incidents to police. It held that the decision lacked cogency and failed to address the core of the claim. The ruling set aside the tribunal decision; it did not decide whether the applicant qualified for refugee status.