The High Court has quashed a Refugee Appeals Tribunal decision refusing refugee status to an Iranian Kurdish man, finding that the Tribunal had not fairly assessed country information and a court document he submitted in support of his claim.
In a judgment delivered on 6 March 2015, Ms Justice Faherty ordered the case to be reconsidered by a different member of the Tribunal. The court did not decide whether the applicant qualified for refugee status or whether the document was authentic.
The applicant said he fled Iran after authorities searched for him following the discovery that a car he had taken in for repair had been used in anti-government operations. He claimed his uncle told him the garage owner and another worker had been arrested, and that authorities had repeatedly visited the applicant’s home looking for him. He arrived in Ireland in October 2009.
The Refugee Appeals Tribunal rejected his appeal in July 2010, relying mainly on credibility concerns. These included inconsistencies between his account and a translated Iranian court document, which appeared to record a conviction and sentence, and what the Tribunal considered implausible about his relatives’ knowledge of the court proceedings. The Tribunal gave the document no weight and said it conflicted with his evidence.
The applicant argued that the Tribunal had not explained how it weighed reports about conditions in Iran, including material concerning Kurdish people and closed court proceedings. The High Court accepted that once the Tribunal said it had considered country information, it had to explain its view of that material and its relevance to the claim. A general statement that the reports had been considered was insufficient. The court found the lack of reasoning particularly material to the Tribunal’s assessment of what the applicant’s relatives would have known about any court hearing.
The court also found that apparent inconsistencies in the document did not, by themselves, excuse the failure to make inquiries into its authenticity. The translated document contained references to both 11 and 16 September 2009, and the court considered the dates ambiguous. It also noted the applicant’s unchallenged account that “Pride” in his questionnaire referred to a Toyota model and had been translated as “Kia Pride.” The Tribunal had returned the original document and envelope, retaining only a copy.
The judge rejected a separate argument that the Tribunal had relied on an unidentified document to undermine credibility, finding that the decision as a whole showed the reference was to the Iranian court document. She described an unrelated reference in the Tribunal decision to possible involvement in war crimes as “bizarre” and worrying, but it was not a ground advanced for quashing the decision.
Because the hearing proceeded on a telescoped basis, the court formally granted leave for judicial review and quashed the Tribunal’s decision. It remitted the matter for reconsideration by a different Tribunal member.