The High Court has dismissed two judicial review applications challenging decisions of the International Protection Appeals Tribunal (IPAT), including claims that it used the wrong standard of proof in assessing international protection applications.
In a judgment delivered on 7 December 2018, Mr Justice Richard Humphreys ruled that neither applicant had shown grounds for quashing the tribunal decisions. The cases concerned separate applicants, identified in the judgment as M.E.O. (Nigeria) and U.O. (Nigeria), who claimed persecution or serious harm because of their sexual orientation.
The applicants argued that the relevant test should be whether there was a reasonable degree of likelihood, or a reasonable chance, that their claims were true. The judge said the tribunal’s approach already allowed it to accept past facts that had a “reasonable chance of being true” where the benefit of the doubt applied. He also found that the credibility concerns recorded in each applicant’s tribunal decision meant neither would have succeeded under the more permissive test they proposed.
The judgment gave two further reasons for rejecting the standard-of-proof challenge. The grounds of review did not properly identify the legal basis for the proposed test, the judge said, and the applicants had not established that EU, international, human rights or domestic law required it. He followed an earlier High Court ruling that had rejected a similar argument.
The judge also rejected the applicants’ other challenges. In U.O.’s case, he found the tribunal’s credibility assessments and reasoning were open to it on the evidence, and that the claims of stereotyping and irrationality had not been made out. In M.E.O.’s case, he rejected the argument that the tribunal should assess future risk using parts of the applicant’s account it had not accepted.
The court also dismissed a complaint about the tribunal’s reasons, finding that decision-makers must give the main reasons for a decision but are not required to address every point individually. The judgment addressed the legality of the IPAT decisions under judicial review; it did not make a new determination of either protection claim.
The order was that both applications be dismissed.