The High Court has quashed a Refugee Appeals Tribunal decision refusing an asylum appeal after finding the tribunal wrongly treated the applicant’s claim as based on her husband’s failed claim.
In a judgment delivered on 30 May 2014, Mr Justice Mac Eochaidh said the applicant’s claim was based on her own personal political involvement. The court could not determine what weight the tribunal had given to its mistaken understanding, which the judge said likely played a major role in the final decision.
The applicant, identified in the judgment as G.N.L., claimed she was a member of AJM, an association supporting the opposition Movement for the Liberation of Congo. She said she feared persecution in the Democratic Republic of Congo and had fled after an attack following elections. She also described her husband’s disappearance and a raid on her sister’s home. These were claims recounted in the judgment, not findings made by the High Court.
The tribunal had rejected her appeal against a negative asylum recommendation. In its decision, it described her claim as based on her husband’s unsuccessful claim. The applicant challenged the decision on several grounds, including credibility findings, the tribunal’s treatment of AJM and her claim, and the fairness of the oral hearing. The respondents disputed her arguments and said the tribunal had given detailed reasons for its credibility findings.
The court acknowledged that the tribunal had made significant negative credibility findings which might, by themselves, support a refusal of asylum. But the judge said he could not separate those findings from the fundamental error because the decision did not show what weight the mistaken premise carried.
The respondents had also challenged the applicant’s original English-language affidavit, arguing it did not meet procedural requirements because she needed an interpreter and the affidavit lacked the required certification that she understood it. A French translation and a new affidavit sworn in French were later submitted, years after the original. The court found the applicant was not personally at fault for the lawyers’ procedural error and that it was a good and sufficient reason to extend the time limit.
The court extended time for the judicial review, granted leave to seek it and made an order quashing the tribunal’s decision. The judgment does not record a final determination of the asylum claim or an order remitting it for reconsideration.