The High Court has rejected a judicial review challenge by a Ghanaian man who sought to overturn a decision refusing him refugee status and subsidiary protection.
Mr Justice Barry O’Donnell ruled on 7 June 2024 that the International Protection Appeals Tribunal acted lawfully when it affirmed the refusal of the applicant’s protection claims. The court did not reconsider his credibility or substitute its own assessment for the tribunal’s. It found that the process was fair and that the tribunal had applied the relevant standards when assessing his account.
The applicant, identified in the judgment only as F. B. C., said he feared persecution in Ghana because he was gay. The tribunal accepted that he was a Ghanaian national, but did not accept that he had been persecuted or that his account of his sexual orientation was credible. The judge noted that the applicant’s claims about danger to gay people in Ghana were consistent with country information, while stressing that the court’s task was to review the legality of the tribunal’s decision, not decide the protection claim afresh.
The applicant argued that the tribunal relied on conjecture or stereotypes, failed to put significant concerns to him for a response, and placed unreasonable reliance on Google Maps. The judge rejected those grounds. He found that the tribunal had considered the claim as a whole, had allowed for possible linguistic and trauma-related difficulties, and had given the applicant opportunities to address concerns and submit further documents.
After the appeal hearing, the applicant submitted notes said to be from a cousin and a pastor, along with a GP letter confirming that he was awaiting a urology review. The tribunal gave the notes little or no weight because it could not establish their authenticity or reliability. The High Court found that the tribunal was not required to invite a further response: the documents had been submitted after the applicant was told he could request a further hearing, and the tribunal’s concerns about them did not form a significant basis for its overall credibility findings.
The judge also held that Google Maps did not establish the existence or location of the prayer centre where the applicant said he had stayed, and that the tribunal had reasonably concluded the map did not support his account. He found no error in the tribunal’s overall credibility assessment and held its decision lawful.
The court granted a two-day extension of time for the judicial review proceedings, which the respondents had not opposed with force. The judge expressed a provisional view that the respondents should receive their costs and listed the matter for final orders on 21 June 2024. The judgment does not record the final costs order.