The High Court has refused an anonymised applicant’s challenge to the rejection of his international protection claim, finding that he had not established any of the grounds for judicial review.
The judgment was delivered by Ms Justice Tara Burns on 21 January 2021. The applicant, a Zimbabwean national identified as LP in the case heading, sought an order quashing the International Protection Appeals Tribunal’s decision of 13 November 2019. The tribunal had refused refugee status and subsidiary protection after finding his claim that he was gay not credible.
The applicant’s protection claim was that he had been in a relationship with a man in Zimbabwe and faced threats from Zanu PF youths. He said that, in September 2016, the youths attacked his partner at the partner’s home, leaving him seriously injured. The applicant said his mother later told him that his partner had died from those injuries, and that he left Zimbabwe in November 2016. These were claims considered in the protection process, not findings made by the High Court.
The applicant argued that the tribunal had mishandled a Spirasi report, failed to assess risk connected with his attendance at a Pride parade, wrongly considered his sexuality and account of the attack together, failed to apply the benefit of the doubt, and failed to assess country information concerning other possible risks on return.
The court found no error in the tribunal’s treatment of the medical evidence. The Spirasi report recorded complex PTSD, anxiety and major depression, and discussed research linking depression with memory difficulties. But the report also said the applicant had not reported memory or cognitive problems, and the court noted there was no evidence that he had difficulty recalling events.
The court also held that the Pride-related risk argument had not been put to the tribunal as a claim that would apply regardless of the applicant’s sexual orientation. It said judicial review could not be used to litigate issues that had not been argued before the decision-maker. On the other grounds, the court found that the tribunal had considered evidence beyond the alleged attack, and that the benefit of the doubt did not arise because the applicant’s general credibility had not been established. The court also noted that the other return-risk arguments had not formed the basis of his claim before the tribunal.
The High Court concluded that none of the grounds of challenge had been established. It refused the relief sought and ordered the applicant to pay the respondents’ costs.