The High Court has refused an Iraqi couple’s application to quash decisions refusing their asylum appeals, finding that the Refugee Appeals Tribunal’s credibility assessments were reasonable and rational.
In a judgment delivered on 4 June 2015, Mr Justice Eagar said he was not satisfied that the tribunal’s credibility findings were tainted by conjecture or speculation. The application sought certiorari of two tribunal decisions: one dated 21 May 2010 and the other 1 June 2010. The court refused that relief for both applicants.
The couple, identified in the judgment as Z.A.B. and H.A.S., arrived in Ireland and applied for asylum in March 2009. They said they had worked at different banks in Baghdad. H.A.S. alleged that a man connected with construction companies and the Al-Mahdi militia threatened him after he refused to process a bank guarantee without required paperwork. The couple said Z.A.B. was later threatened at her workplace, and that H.A.S.’s brother and the couple’s young son were killed in a gun attack they believed was linked to the threats.
They said they left their jobs and moved to a predominantly Sunni area, where Z.A.B. was threatened over not wearing a hijab. They then left Iraq. These were the applicants’ claims as recounted in the judgment, not findings by the High Court.
The tribunal had rejected the claims on credibility grounds. The High Court considered that the tribunal had identified and explained concerns about the evidence, including inconsistencies and matters it regarded as implausible. The judge separately described the tribunal’s concern about travel on a false passport as peripheral, referring to an earlier High Court judgment. He said that issue did not undermine the tribunal’s other credibility findings.
The applicants argued that the hearing was unfair because the tribunal member stopped cross-examination after saying he had formed a view about Z.A.B.’s credibility, and did not give her a chance to answer adverse concerns. They also challenged the credibility assessments and said country-of-origin information had not been considered. The respondents argued that the applicants had been able to give their evidence and address matters raised in the section 13 reports.
The court held that the tribunal member could dispense with cross-examination by the presenting officer. It said the applicants had access to the section 13 reports before the hearing and an opportunity to address their contents through evidence or argument. The court was not satisfied that the tribunal had to raise each concern again through questioning. It therefore refused certiorari; the judgment does not order the tribunal to reconsider the claims.