The High Court has dismissed a judicial review challenge to the International Protection Appeals Tribunal’s rejection of an applicant’s appeal against the refusal of international protection.
In a judgment delivered on 11 February 2020, Mr Justice Richard Humphreys dismissed the application for certiorari of the tribunal’s 20 August 2019 decision. The court did not grant the requested relief.
The applicant, identified in the judgment as O.A. (Nigeria), applied for international protection on 15 March 2017, relying on her alleged sexual orientation. The International Protection Office rejected the application on credibility grounds in November 2018. The tribunal held an oral appeal hearing in April 2019 and also found her account not credible.
The applicant challenged the tribunal decision on five grounds. She argued, among other things, that it relied on incidental matters such as delay in claiming asylum, failed to take account of relevant statements and documents, mishandled medical evidence, gave no clear reasons on her sexuality, and wrongly used the benefit of the doubt principle.
The court rejected those arguments. It found that the tribunal had considered the information and documentation presented, and could take account of matters beyond the core protection claim when assessing credibility. The judge also held that the fact a document was not a forgery did not establish that its contents were true; the evidence had to be assessed as a whole.
On the medical material, the judge read the tribunal’s statement that the reports had “no weight” as meaning any support they provided was outweighed by the broader credibility concerns. He acknowledged that the wording could have been better, but found no legal error in the tribunal’s approach or in the order in which it discussed the evidence.
The court also found that the tribunal had given a clear and reasoned account of which parts of the applicant’s account it accepted. As the claim about sexual orientation lacked documentary support, the judge held that the benefit-of-the-doubt issue properly arose. He added that, in any event, it was clear the tribunal had not accepted her account on that point.
The application was dismissed.