The High Court quashed a Refugee Appeals Tribunal decision refusing refugee status to an anonymised Afghan applicant, ruling that the tribunal had not given clear reasons for its treatment of evidence central to the claim. The case was remitted for a fresh, de novo consideration by a different tribunal member.
The judgment, delivered by Ms Justice Stewart on 12 January 2016, also extended the time for the applicant to bring judicial review proceedings. The applicant had been outside the statutory 14-day period; the judge accepted the explanation for the delay given in an affidavit from his then solicitor.
The applicant’s account was that he trained as a doctor, treated sick and wounded Hizb-e-Islami and Taliban fighters, and was captured and imprisoned by Afghan government and NATO-led forces in 2006. He said he was tortured, escaped in 2007 and later travelled to Ireland, where he applied for asylum in March 2008. These were his claims, not findings made by the High Court.
The tribunal had affirmed a negative recommendation on the refugee claim in a decision dated 25 July 2011, later accompanied by an addendum dated 16 August. Among its credibility concerns, it cited the applicant’s inability to produce an Afghan medical registration certificate at the hearing. After he submitted a document said to show registration, the tribunal said it did not alter its conclusion. The tribunal also made a conditional finding that the Refugee Convention’s Article 1F exclusion clause applied if its credibility findings were wrong, based on the applicant’s admitted membership of Hizb-e-Islami and participation in armed conflict.
The applicant argued that he had provided medical and humanitarian assistance and had not fought. He also said the tribunal failed to assess substantial documentation about his medical qualifications and experience. The respondents maintained that the credibility findings were sustainable and that the Article 1F finding was secondary.
Justice Stewart held that Article 1F could not be applied without a clear determination of the applicant’s status in the organisation and specific consideration of the acts attributed to him. The tribunal had not made a clear finding that he was a doctor, despite his account that he treated fighters and did not take part in attacks. The judge also rejected the argument that the Article 1F finding could be severed from the credibility assessment, saying its effect across the decision could not be pinpointed.
The court found that documents capable, on their face, of supporting the applicant’s claimed medical role had not been clearly accepted or rejected with reasons. It said the tribunal’s treatment of the later registration document was neither rational nor reasoned. The court quashed the tribunal decision and ordered reconsideration by a different member. It did not decide whether the applicant qualified for refugee status.