The High Court has refused a Somali applicant’s request to quash a recommendation that he not be declared a refugee, finding that the grounds advanced did not justify setting it aside.
Mr Justice Barr delivered the judgment on 2 October 2014. The applicant, identified in the judgment only as H. H. A., was a minor bringing the proceedings through his next friend, Thomas Dunning. The case challenged a report by the Refugee Applications Commissioner dated 22 February 2010.
The court first extended the deadline for bringing the judicial review. The application was issued on 16 April 2010, around a month outside the statutory 14-day period. The judge accepted that the delay was sufficiently explained by the time needed to arrange legal advice and consultations involving the applicant, his social worker and next friend.
The applicant said he was Somali and Bajuni and had fled persecution, including an attack in which he said his father was killed and his mother and sisters were raped. The Commissioner’s report had rejected his account and recommended that he not be declared a refugee. The applicant challenged the treatment of his identity, age, explanations for earlier false travel details, a UK visa and a language analysis report.
The judge found no fault in the Commissioner’s weighing of the identity evidence. He also held that the Commissioner could reasonably reject the applicant’s explanations for giving false or misleading travel information, including because the later account still contained inconsistencies. On the visa issue, the judge agreed that the Commissioner could reach the conclusion drawn from the evidence and the applicant’s account.
The court also rejected the challenge to the Commissioner’s treatment of the Sprakab language analysis. The judge said the applicant had a fair opportunity to make written submissions and respond at interview, and that the weight given to the report was for the Commissioner. The judgment did not independently determine the applicant’s nationality or refugee claim.
Although the applicant could have appealed to the Refugee Appeals Tribunal without an oral hearing, the judge ruled that this did not bar judicial review in the circumstances. He accepted that the non-oral appeal could constrain the applicant’s ability to challenge credibility findings.
The court ultimately refused relief. It did not quash the Commissioner’s report or recommendation.