The High Court granted A.A. leave to challenge one aspect of a Refugee Appeals Tribunal decision refusing refugee status, finding an arguable question about whether the Tribunal should have considered updated information on Sudan before deciding the appeal.
Mr Justice John MacMenamin delivered the judgment on 25 November 2010. The applicant, a Sudanese national, sought leave for judicial review of the Tribunal’s decision affirming a negative recommendation by the Refugee Applications Commissioner. The decision was communicated on 22 August 2008, and proceedings issued on 10 September, three days beyond the 14-day time limit. The judge granted an extension, accepting the solicitor’s explanation for the short delay and noting the arguable merits of the case.
The applicant said he was from the Tama tribe, a non-Arab group from Darfur, and feared persecution if returned to Sudan. He also alleged that a man who had made him work as a shepherd would pursue him. Those claims were part of his account; the court was deciding whether grounds for judicial review could proceed, not whether he qualified for refugee status.
The Tribunal had relied on an April 2008 UK Home Office guidance note, which said ordinary non-Arab Darfuris were not generally at risk outside Darfur and could relocate within Sudan. A later Home Office bulletin, published on 26 July 2008, described human rights abuses against Darfurian groups after a May attack on Khartoum. The applicant argued that the new information materially changed the country conditions and should have been obtained or considered by the Tribunal.
The judge held that it was arguable, under Regulation 5 of the 2006 protection regulations, that the Tribunal’s obligation to consider relevant facts about the country of origin at the time of its decision could extend beyond information available at the hearing. He noted the bulletin’s reported events and the April guidance note’s warning that additional country information might be available. Leave was granted on this ground only.
The court refused leave on two other arguments. It was not established that the Tribunal had ignored a 2006 UNHCR position paper on Darfur: the Home Office guidance note had discussed that paper, and the Tribunal was entitled to prefer its conclusions. The judge also rejected the separate argument that the Tribunal had failed to give reasons for not adopting the UNHCR position. The judgment did not quash the Tribunal’s decision or determine the applicant’s refugee claim; it allowed one proposed judicial review ground to proceed.