The Court of Appeal has quashed a Refugee Appeals Tribunal decision rejecting R.A.’s asylum claim, finding that the Tribunal failed to assess relevant country of origin information and documents when considering his credibility.
In a judgment delivered on 15 November 2017, the court allowed R.A.’s appeal from a High Court decision that had refused judicial review of the Tribunal’s 25 November 2011 decision. It ordered certiorari quashing the Tribunal decision. The matter was to be remitted to the International Protection Tribunal. The Court of Appeal did not determine whether R.A.’s account was true or whether he qualified for protection.
R.A. claimed that he had led the youth section of the Ivorian Popular Front in his local area and fled the Ivory Coast in May 2011 during civil conflict. He said he discovered that his house had been burned, was arrested as an FPI supporter and later went into hiding. The Tribunal rejected his account on credibility grounds, citing inconsistencies in his evidence and his limited knowledge of political and military events.
The Court of Appeal held that country information need not be consulted mechanically in every protection case. But it was relevant here because R.A.’s claims concerned specific events during the 2011 conflict. The Tribunal had not referred to that information when assessing whether his account could be true. The court said that omission breached the applicable requirement to consider relevant country of origin information.
The court also found that the Tribunal had not properly considered documents R.A. relied on, including identity and party membership cards, a police notification and a letter from a church bishop. Their authenticity was unresolved. The Court of Appeal said that if authentic, the documents could materially affect the assessment of his claimed political involvement and risk. It was for the decision-maker to assess their authenticity and probative value as part of an overall credibility assessment.
The court accepted that the Tribunal could draw adverse credibility findings from inconsistencies in R.A.’s testimony. Its ruling was that the assessment had to account for all relevant information, including the country reports and documents in this case. It therefore found that both the Tribunal and the High Court had erred in the handling of that material.