The High Court has quashed a Refugee Appeals Tribunal decision rejecting a Belarusian man’s asylum appeal, finding that the Tribunal failed to consider documents that could support key parts of his account.
The judgment, delivered by Mr Justice Cooke on 24 July 2009, concerned a Tribunal decision dated 17 April 2007. The applicant said he feared persecution in Belarus because of his political opinions and activities as a member of the Belarus Popular Front, an opposition party.
He described attending rallies, being beaten and injured by police, being arrested and imprisoned, and suffering violence in prison. He also said his girlfriend wrote a newspaper article about a rally and that her family home was later searched. These were his claims, not findings made by the High Court.
The Tribunal rejected his account as not credible, focusing on what it considered his lack of basic knowledge of the party’s history and leadership. It cited his answers about party founder Zianon Pazniak, elections and a split in the party. The High Court said it was not its role on judicial review to reassess the applicant’s credibility or substitute its own view for the Tribunal’s.
However, the applicant had also submitted documents that appeared on their face to relate to events in his account. They included police and court records, a letter said to be from a former cellmate, a newspaper article attributed to his girlfriend, and a sample of a wanted poster. The High Court said the Tribunal decision did not address these materials, beyond a general statement that relevant documentation had been considered.
The court noted that the documents might prove false or unreliable. It also identified apparent inconsistencies in translations of court records. But it said that, because the material could have significant evidential value if authentic and correctly translated, the Tribunal had to assess it and give reasons if it discounted or rejected it. The court found the failure to do so left the credibility assessment legally flawed.
The High Court also said the Tribunal had failed to rule on the separate appeal ground concerning the applicant’s claimed risk as a returned asylum seeker. It did not decide whether that ground had merit, stating that the matter was for the administrative decision-maker to consider.
The court granted certiorari quashing the Tribunal’s decision. It did not determine whether the documents were authentic, whether the applicant’s account was true, or whether he was entitled to refugee status.