The High Court has refused a South African man’s application for judicial review of a decision rejecting his refugee appeal, finding that the Tribunal’s decision was not vitiated by an error of law or breach of fair procedures.
The judgment, delivered by Ms Justice Faherty on 27 May 2016, concerned a papers-only appeal to the Refugee Appeals Tribunal. The man had sought to quash the Tribunal’s decision affirming the Refugee Applications Commissioner’s recommendation that he should not be declared a refugee. The court also granted an extension of time to bring the judicial review proceedings.
The applicant said he feared discrimination and persecution in South Africa because he was white and held political views associated with not supporting the African National Congress. He cited difficulty obtaining work commensurate with his qualifications, robberies, and what he said was police inaction. The respondents argued that his account and the country information did not establish persecution on a Convention ground, and that he had not pursued complaints through available oversight channels.
Justice Faherty considered whether the Tribunal had carefully examined the appeal, including the applicant’s evidence, submissions and country-of-origin information. She accepted that the Tribunal could have explained more fully why a Digital Journal report about attacks on white South African families was not particularly relevant to his circumstances. However, she found that this shortcoming did not invalidate the decision.
The court noted that the applicant had worked in South Africa and that the record did not objectively show he had been refused employment because of his race. It also found that his account of fear based on political opinion did not provide a basis to overturn the Tribunal’s assessment. On his complaints about police inaction, the court said he had not taken his concerns to the Independent Complaints Directorate, an available complaints body.
The judgment recognised that economic motives for travel do not, by themselves, rule out refugee status where the legal criteria are met. But Justice Faherty was satisfied that the Tribunal had assessed whether the applicant’s claims established a well-founded fear of persecution, and had reasonably concluded that they did not.
The court denied the relief sought in the judicial review proceedings. It did not make a new determination of refugee status; it ruled that the Tribunal’s decision did not warrant the High Court’s intervention.