The High Court has refused leave in a judicial review challenge to a decision refusing a Zimbabwean woman refugee status, finding no basis to disturb the Refugee Appeals Tribunal’s assessment of her evidence.
The applicant sought to quash the tribunal’s decision of 19 February 2010, which upheld a recommendation that she should not be declared a refugee. She also sought to have her appeal reconsidered by a different tribunal member. The court first granted an extension of time: the application had been brought five weeks beyond the statutory 14-day period, and counsel said the applicant had been changing solicitors.
The applicant said she had been arrested and mistreated after taking part in a market traders’ demonstration in Zimbabwe in November 2008. She claimed she faced persecution because authorities would attribute a political opinion to her, and because she had sought asylum abroad. The tribunal rejected her account as not credible, citing inconsistencies, her lack of knowledge about the demonstration, and other aspects of her evidence.
In the High Court, the applicant argued that the tribunal had relied on peripheral matters and speculation. She also challenged its use of UK Home Office guidance on failed asylum seekers returning to Zimbabwe, saying she had not had an opportunity to respond and that the guidance focused on airport risks rather than threats from political groups elsewhere in the country. The respondents said the guidance point was not pleaded and that the material had been introduced by the applicant’s own representatives.
Justice Stewart held that the credibility findings were grounded in the applicant’s evidence and were for the tribunal to assess. Judicial review did not allow the court to substitute its own view of that evidence, and the judge found no legal error in the tribunal’s approach.
The judge did identify an error in the tribunal’s treatment of the applicant’s failure to claim asylum in France. But, given the other credibility findings, that error alone could not invalidate the decision. The judge also rejected the fair procedures challenge concerning country of origin information, finding the applicant had been on notice of material submitted by her own legal advisers. The court found no fault in the tribunal’s use of that information.
The court was not persuaded that there was a basis to challenge the tribunal decision and refused leave. The judgment does not grant the requested order quashing the decision or remitting the appeal.