The High Court refused an applicant leave to seek judicial review of a negative asylum recommendation, finding no substantial grounds to challenge the Refugee Applications Commissioner’s treatment of credibility or the statutory restriction on an oral appeal.
Mr Justice Birmingham delivered the judgment on 8 December 2008. The applicant, identified in the judgment as M. O. O. S., said he was a Somali national and a member of the Asharaf minority clan. He claimed that armed members of the Habr Gedir clan had abducted, beaten and threatened him and his father in 2003. Those were his claims; the court’s decision addressed whether he could bring a judicial review challenge to the commissioner’s recommendation.
The commissioner had recommended that he not be declared a refugee. The officer accepted that country information supported the possibility of risk to a member of a minority clan and that the applicant had injuries that might have been intentionally inflicted, but made adverse credibility findings. The court examined six areas relied on by the officer, including the applicant’s knowledge of local clan structures, flooding, Islam, and his earlier denial that he had sought asylum in the UK. It found no substantial unfairness, irrationality or material irregularity in the interview or credibility assessment.
The applicant argued that the credibility findings and the limits on his appeal breached fair procedures and constitutional justice. He also argued that the restriction was unconstitutional and incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights. Because he had previously applied for asylum in another Geneva Convention state, section 13(5) of the Refugee Act 1996 required an appeal to the Refugee Appeals Tribunal to be decided without an oral hearing. The judge rejected the argument that the authorities had discretion to allow an oral appeal.
The judgment said the issues raised could be addressed through written submissions and supporting material, such as country information or an Islamic scholar’s report. It also held that the applicant had not established arguable grounds to challenge the statutory provisions under the Constitution or the Convention.
The court refused leave to seek judicial review. It did not decide the applicant’s asylum claim afresh or make a refugee-status determination; the decision left the statutory paper appeal route in place.