The High Court refused an Afghan applicant leave to challenge the Refugee Appeals Tribunal’s 2008 rejection of his asylum appeal, finding no substantial ground to quash the decision. It also refused the substantial extension of time required to bring the judicial review proceedings.
The judgment, delivered by Mr Justice Cooke on 4 March 2011, concerned an application for leave under Order 84 and section 5 of the Illegal Immigrants (Trafficking) Act 2000. The application challenged a Tribunal decision dated 28 October 2008, which had upheld a negative recommendation by the Office of the Refugee Applications Commissioner (ORAC).
The anonymised applicant said he was a former Taliban member who had fled Afghanistan because he feared harm linked to his association with his brother, whom he described as a Taliban commander. The asylum decision makers rejected his account as not credible. The Tribunal also concluded that, even if he were credible, available country information indicated that former low-ranking Taliban members who had renounced membership did not face a risk in Afghanistan if they were not opposed to the government.
The decision was communicated on 6 November 2008, and the applicant said he received it on or shortly after 7 November. He consulted two solicitors who advised against judicial review, then instructed his current solicitor on 22 December. Proceedings began on 6 January 2009, outside the 14-day time limit. The court considered both whether there was a substantial ground for challenging the decision and whether there was good and sufficient reason to extend time.
The applicant argued that the Tribunal had wrongly relied on the absence of documents about claimed Taliban membership and the deaths of his uncle and brother. The judge said the interview record showed the applicant had suggested that records might exist and had not taken further steps to produce them. The court also considered the Tribunal’s doubts about his account of selling family farmland for US$10,000 to fund his journey, and about his description of his role as his brother’s bodyguard. It concluded that the credibility assessment, viewed as a whole, could not be disturbed on judicial review.
The applicant also alleged that interpretation difficulties had affected his appeal hearing. The court found that claim unsupported by corroborating material and said no specific findings were identified as having been affected. It further held that the Tribunal was entitled, on the applicant’s own statements and the country information it considered, to find no objective basis for a fear of persecution.
The court refused leave. It did not quash the Tribunal decision or grant an extension of time.