The High Court refused leave for a Sudanese man to pursue judicial review of a 2010 Refugee Appeals Tribunal decision rejecting his asylum appeal. The court found the tribunal’s adverse credibility findings were substantial and definitive, and held that it was not obliged to assess future risk in the circumstances of the case.
The applicant, identified in the judgment as H.A.A. [Sudan], sought to quash the tribunal’s decision and have his appeal reconsidered. Justice Stewart also extended the time for bringing the proceedings after a two-week delay caused by a change of solicitors. The respondents did not object to the extension.
The applicant said he had opposed construction of the Kajbar Dam in Sudan and alleged that authorities arrested him several times, detained and tortured him, and sought him after he fled the country. He said he was Nubian and argued that the tribunal should have considered whether he faced future persecution on political or racial grounds, even after rejecting his account of past events.
He also argued that the tribunal had not adequately assessed a SPIRASI medical report describing some findings as consistent, and others as highly consistent, with the torture he alleged. He further claimed that an Algerian Arabic interpreter’s dialect had made the interview difficult to understand.
The respondents argued that the applicant’s account had been fundamentally disbelieved on central matters. They also said he had stated that he understood the interpreter, and that the medical report did not establish that his injuries were caused as he claimed.
Justice Stewart held that the credibility findings were sufficiently strong to fall within the approach in *Imafu*, under which a decision-maker need not assess a hypothetical future risk based on a history it has rejected. On the medical evidence, the judge found that the tribunal had considered the reports and was entitled to give them no probative value in light of the overall assessment.
The court refused leave. It did not decide whether the applicant would face persecution if returned to Sudan, and did not quash or remit the tribunal decision.