The High Court has refused an application for leave to seek judicial review of a decision rejecting a Cameroonian woman’s appeal against the refusal of refugee status. The court concluded that she had not established substantial grounds to challenge the Refugee Appeals Tribunal’s decision.
The applicant claimed she was a member of the Southern Cameroon’s National Council (SCNC), an Anglophone separatist group, and feared persecution because of her political opinion. She alleged that police detained and mistreated her in 2005 and 2006, and that she fled Cameroon after learning they were looking for her. These were claims made in her asylum process; the Tribunal did not accept her account as credible.
The Refugee Appeals Tribunal had affirmed the earlier recommendation that she should not receive refugee status. It cited inconsistencies in her account, concerns about the authenticity of documents, and her failure to apply for asylum during a stopover in France. The applicant challenged that decision on 20 grounds, which were narrowed at the High Court hearing. The main issue the court required the respondents to address concerned the Tribunal’s treatment of the documents.
The applicant argued that the Tribunal had failed to examine original documents, put its doubts to her, or explain the basis for its concerns. The court found no evidence that the Tribunal had failed to consider originals, or that the applicant had been prejudiced by any reliance on copies. It also rejected the claim that she had not been questioned about the documents: the Tribunal’s decision recorded that concerns about a purported arrest warrant and affidavit had been put to her. The court said she had already been on notice that the documents’ authenticity was in question.
The judge considered the warrant and affidavit and identified discrepancies on their face, including a mismatch between the affidavit’s account of when police sought the applicant and her own account. The warrant named nine other people but did not specify the alleged offences or when they occurred. The court concluded the Tribunal had given sufficient reasons for its concerns and that its conclusion was not unreasonable or irrational. The applicant therefore had not shown substantial grounds on this issue.
The court also rejected subsidiary complaints about medical records, the assessment of the claimed 2005 detention, the applicant’s asserted risk on return and earlier Tribunal decisions. It held that the Tribunal was not required to refer expressly to every document, and that it could take account of how the account of the 2005 incident developed during the asylum process. Because the Tribunal did not accept the applicant’s credibility, the court said it did not have to assess the likelihood that she would face arrest and imprisonment if returned.
The application for leave failed. The court did not grant judicial review or overturn the Tribunal’s refusal of the appeal.