The High Court has refused an application for leave to seek judicial review of a Refugee Appeals Tribunal decision that upheld the rejection of M. B. H.’s application for refugee status. The court held that the applicant had not shown substantial grounds to quash the tribunal’s decision.
The ruling, delivered by Ms Justice Clark on 24 March 2009, concerned the tribunal’s decision of 21 March 2007. The tribunal had affirmed an earlier negative recommendation by the Office of the Refugee Applications Commissioner (ORAC). The hearing took place at the King’s Inns on 11 March 2009.
M. B. H. said he was a Sudanese national and a member of the Fur tribe. He claimed he joined the Sudanese Liberation Movement (SLM) in 2003, printing and distributing leaflets and human rights reports in Al Fasher. He said security forces raided his home in March 2006, seized SLM leaflets and pursued him as he escaped. These were his account of events, not findings made by the High Court.
The tribunal accepted that he was from Darfur but concluded that his profile did not put him at risk and that he could relocate within Sudan, including to Khartoum, where he had grown up. It relied on a UK Home Office guidance note which said low or mid-level SLM affiliates were not generally at risk outside Darfur. The applicant argued that the tribunal had relied selectively on the note and failed to consider material about risks to people viewed as intellectuals, merchants or prominent activists.
Justice Clark reviewed the applicant’s described activities, including clandestine leaflet distribution, organising meetings and occasional small-scale car trading. She found these did not indicate a prominent SLM position or the kind of intellectual or merchant profile identified as potentially at risk in the guidance. She also noted that internal relocation had been raised at the ORAC stage and that the applicant’s appeal submissions had not argued that he fell into the other risk categories.
The court concluded that the tribunal’s assessment was reasonable and rational in the circumstances. It refused leave to apply for judicial review. The ruling decided only whether there were substantial grounds to bring the challenge; it did not determine the underlying asylum claim anew.