The High Court has refused the relief sought by two Moldovan nationals who challenged a Refugee Appeals Tribunal decision rejecting their asylum appeals. Mr Justice Feeney delivered judgment on 7 December 2007, concluding that the applicants had failed to establish the substantial grounds required to bring judicial review proceedings.
The applicants, identified as V.P. and S.P., had sought to quash the Tribunal’s decision of 15 December 2005. They had applied for asylum in June 2005, citing a stated fear of political persecution in Moldova. After an oral hearing, the Tribunal affirmed the Refugee Applications Commissioner’s recommendation that they were not refugees and dismissed their appeal.
Their judicial review challenge raised two grounds. They argued that the Tribunal had made a material factual error about a Moldovan criminal provision and that its adverse credibility assessment lacked evidence.
The factual dispute concerned Article 174/6 and a document said to be a summons for the first applicant. A translation available to the Tribunal described the provision as concerning an insult to a police co-worker. A later translation, obtained after the Tribunal decision, described it as concerning harassment of a police informer. The High Court said the later translation was not before the Tribunal when it made its decision. Even if that translation were correct, the court held that any error was within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction, was not material to its central reasoning, and did not make the decision irrational. The court also noted that the Tribunal had made a separate finding that evidence was manifestly false.
The Tribunal’s central reasoning was forward-looking: it considered whether the applicants faced a reasonable likelihood of future persecution. It relied on the political party associated with the first applicant having become part of Moldova’s government after the March 2005 election. The High Court said that this finding was supported by the evidence available to the Tribunal.
The applicants also challenged the Tribunal’s credibility findings, including its conclusion that the claimed threats against an ordinary party member were not plausible. The High Court said judicial review was not an appeal on the merits and found that the credibility assessment had a rational basis. It declined to substitute its own view for the Tribunal’s.
The court refused the relief sought. Its ruling concerned whether the Tribunal’s decision was lawful on the grounds raised; it did not rehear the asylum claims or make a new determination of refugee status.