The High Court has refused an Algerian man’s application to quash a decision that he should not be declared a refugee, finding that the Refugee Appeals Tribunal had carried out a careful inquiry into whether he could safely relocate within Algeria.
The case was a judicial review of the Tribunal’s May 2014 decision affirming the Refugee Applications Commissioner’s recommendation. The applicant sought an order of certiorari. The High Court hearing took place on 3 July 2015, and Mr Justice Eagar delivered judgment on 16 July.
The Tribunal accepted the applicant’s account of past ill treatment by members of the local Judicial Police Mobile Brigade (BMPJ) in Tigzirt, including arrests and a cigarette burn. It found that the ill treatment between 2007 and 2010 was sufficiently serious to amount to persecution, and that state protection was unavailable in that locality. It also found that the applicant would not face a serious possibility of persecution in Algiers, where he had previously lived and worked, and that it would not be unreasonable for him to live there. The Tribunal rejected as not credible his separate claim that he would face persecution as a failed asylum seeker, relying on more recent country information.
The applicant argued that the Tribunal’s relocation assessment was legally flawed and inadequately reasoned, particularly because the accepted persecution involved state agents. His counsel relied on international guidance and Irish case law concerning internal relocation and the need to assess the risk in a proposed location. The respondents argued that relocation could be considered where the risk was localised and the evidence indicated the local police had not pursued him in Algiers or Tizi-Ouzou.
Justice Eagar said judicial review examines the decision-making process rather than substituting the court’s view for that of the decision-maker. He found the Tribunal’s reasons clear and its inquiry into a safe relocation area careful. The judgment said the UNHCR and Michigan guidelines were useful but not binding on the Tribunal, and rejected the argument that the legal burden shifted exclusively to the decision-maker.
The court was satisfied that the Tribunal had acted fairly and reasonably, given reasons, and afforded fair procedures. It refused the application for certiorari. The ruling determined the judicial review challenge; it did not itself grant or refuse refugee status.