The High Court has quashed a Refugee Appeals Tribunal decision rejecting a Zimbabwean man’s asylum appeal, finding that the Tribunal did not adequately address conflicting country information or the effect of his past political activity and his period of avoiding politics in Bulawayo.
Mr Justice Eagar gave judgment on 17 December 2015. He also extended the time for bringing the judicial review application, finding good and sufficient reason for a two-day delay and substantial grounds to challenge the decision.
The applicant, identified in the judgment as T.M. (Zimbabwe), said he joined the Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) in 2007. The Tribunal accepted his account that he was attacked in 2008 by men he suspected were Zanu-PF supporters, and that the attack was likely politically motivated. He said he moved to Bulawayo and refrained from political activity there until returning to Gwatemba in 2013 to help the MDC campaign and recruit supporters.
He fled Zimbabwe in June 2013 after being warned of possible arrests. The Tribunal accepted that he had a subjective fear of persecution, but concluded that he lacked an objective basis for fearing harm on return. It relied in part on information describing a decline in politically motivated violence and limited difficulties for MDC supporters in Bulawayo. It treated the 2008 attack as an isolated incident and found that past persecution was not a serious indication that harm would recur.
The applicant challenged the Tribunal’s treatment of country information, arguing that it selectively relied on material supporting its conclusion while failing to address reports describing continuing political violence and harassment. He also argued that the Tribunal wrongly referred to him campaigning in Bulawayo, when his evidence was that he had avoided politics there to stay safe.
The High Court found that the Tribunal had not explained why it preferred some country information over material presenting a different picture. It also described the failure to record that the applicant had avoided MDC activity in Bulawayo as a key omission. That omission mattered to the Tribunal’s reliance on his five years without difficulty there and to its assessment of whether past harm might recur if he resumed political activity after return.
The court held that the Tribunal had failed to properly apply Regulation 5(2) of the European Communities (Eligibility for Protection) Regulations 2006. It quashed the Tribunal’s decision and directed that the appeal be remitted to a separate Tribunal member for fresh determination. The court did not itself decide the asylum claim or order that refugee status be granted.