The High Court has dismissed a judicial review challenge to the International Protection Appeals Tribunal’s refusal of an applicant’s claims for refugee status and subsidiary protection.
The applicant, identified in the judgment as D.K. (South Africa), said he was a Zimbabwean national who had faced persecution because of his family’s involvement with the Movement for Democratic Change. The tribunal rejected his account and found it was more likely that he was South African.
The challenge concerned the tribunal’s decision of 8 August 2018. The applicant argued that its conclusion about his nationality was irrational or based on error, and that it should have made further enquiries about a purported Zimbabwean passport. He said the passport issue was central to his protection claim.
The court rejected the challenge. On the claim that the tribunal’s assessment was irrational or conjectural, the judge said the tribunal had made a reasoned assessment of the facts. The applicant advanced no specific argument on that ground.
The judge also rejected the argument that the tribunal had a duty under the European Convention on Human Rights to investigate the passport’s validity. The judgment distinguished the European Court of Human Rights case relied on by the applicant, saying it concerned deportation, whereas refusal of international protection did not itself engage the same Convention obligations.
The court noted that a limited duty to investigate may arise in some circumstances under EU law, but said no such duty had been pleaded in this case. It also found that the applicant had not shown he asked the tribunal to make the suggested enquiries, including asking the UK Home Office about the source of its information or about visa processing between Harare and Pretoria.
The passport information was not the tribunal’s only reason for doubting the claimed Zimbabwean nationality. The judgment said it was one indicator among several. It also stressed that judicial review was not an appeal and that the tribunal, having heard the applicant, was better placed to assess his credibility.
The application was dismissed. The court did not itself determine the applicant’s nationality or grant any protection status.