The High Court has refused an application to quash a decision rejecting an anonymised Bangladeshi man’s application for international protection. The court also ordered costs in favour of the respondents.
In a judgment delivered on 3 November 2020, Ms Justice Tara Burns considered a judicial review of the International Protection Appeals Tribunal’s decision that the applicant was not entitled to refugee or subsidiary protection. The tribunal had affirmed the International Protection Office recommendation following an oral appeal hearing.
The applicant said he feared returning to Bangladesh because of alleged threats connected to his Hindu religion and a claimed kidnapping charge. He also said his family had been targeted. These were his claims in the protection process; the High Court judgment records them without finding that the alleged events occurred.
The tribunal had found aspects of the account not credible, including the alleged threats, the kidnapping accusation and the claimed attacks on the applicant’s family. It also found that letters said to be from a lawyer, along with other submitted documents, did not establish the claimed kidnapping charge or family targeting.
The applicant argued in the judicial review that the tribunal had not adequately explained its credibility conclusions, had unfairly analysed the lawyer’s letters, and had acted unfairly by searching online for the purported lawyer in English rather than Bengali.
Justice Burns rejected the challenge to the reasons given. Although the tribunal’s decision recited parts of the oral evidence rather than analysing it in detail, the judge said it was discernible why the applicant had not been believed. She also found that the tribunal had given reasoned explanations for treating the documentary material as not probative.
The judge held that the tribunal’s criticisms of the three lawyer’s letters were reasonable and not irrational or speculative. The letters were evidence for the tribunal to assess, and it was reasonable to consider what a professional advisory letter might be expected to address.
On the internet search, the judge noted that the tribunal’s decision said its assessment of the letters was based on their content alone. The search, which yielded no results, was therefore not ultimately relied on in reaching that assessment.
The High Court refused the relief sought and ordered costs for the respondents. It did not determine the applicant’s protection claim afresh; the judicial review concerned the lawfulness of the tribunal’s decision.