The High Court has refused an Ivory Coast asylum applicant leave to seek judicial review of a Refugee Appeals Tribunal decision rejecting his appeal. Mr Justice Birmingham ruled on 13 July 2007 that none of the grounds advanced met the threshold for leave.
The applicant, identified in the judgment as V. B., said he was a national of Ivory Coast, a Muslim and a member of the Dioula ethnic group. He claimed that government forces killed his younger brother at their home on 4 November 2004 after he addressed Dioula youths following prayers. He said he escaped through a window and later travelled to Ireland to seek refuge. These were the applicant’s claims, not findings by the High Court.
His asylum claim was refused at first instance and on appeal. The Refugee Appeals Tribunal decision was dated 12 January 2006, following a hearing on 4 October 2005. In the judicial review leave application, he argued that the tribunal had wrongly assessed his credibility, taken too long to issue its decision and failed to determine claims based on race, religion and membership of a particular social group.
On delay, the judge noted the decision came just over three months after the hearing and that a first draft had been sent for typing on 15 November 2005. He found the delay was not enough to require the tribunal decision to be quashed and the case reheard. The applicant had not identified factual inaccuracies in the tribunal’s account suggesting that time had blurred the decision-maker’s memory.
The judgment acknowledged that the tribunal decision did not specifically refer to fear of persecution on race, religion or social-group grounds. But the judge concluded that the tribunal member was aware of the claim and had adjudicated on it, so he refused leave on that ground.
The court also rejected the challenge to the credibility assessment. The judge said the tribunal member had explained why he disbelieved the account, including the applicant’s description of escaping armed officers, his account of travelling without documents, and his explanation for not seeking asylum in France. The High Court found the approach was not irrational. It also considered the country-of-origin material and the applicant’s criticisms of the handling of documents and legal authorities, but found no basis to grant leave.
The court’s decision was limited to whether the applicant could proceed with judicial review. It did not conduct a new asylum hearing or make a fresh determination of his protection claim. The judge refused leave on all grounds advanced.