The High Court has granted an Angolan asylum applicant leave to seek judicial review of a decision refusing refugee status, but only on two limited grounds concerning a medical report and six earlier Refugee Appeals Tribunal (RAT) decisions.
In a judgment delivered on 21 January 2009, Ms Justice Clark ruled that the applicant had shown substantial grounds to challenge the fairness of the RAT’s process. The court did not quash the tribunal decision or decide whether the applicant qualified for refugee status. Leave allows the judicial review challenge to proceed on the specified grounds.
The challenged RAT decision, issued on 30 August 2007, affirmed an earlier negative recommendation by the Office of the Refugee Applications Commissioner (ORAC). The applicant’s account included alleged membership of a Cabinda separatist group, detention in Angola, the killing of his wife, and his escape to Ireland. The tribunal rejected his personal credibility after identifying what it described as inconsistencies. The applicant disputed aspects of that assessment and argued that the tribunal had not properly considered his explanations, medical evidence, country information, fear of return as a failed asylum seeker, and six previous RAT decisions.
Justice Clark said the SPIRASI medical report deserved specific reference and analysis before its relevance was rejected. It described 12 small scars on the applicant’s arms as “consistent” with his account of torture, and reported that he needed bereavement and post-traumatic counselling. The judge said the tribunal decision should have explained the report’s place in the credibility assessment and whether it was being disregarded.
The court also found substantial grounds concerning the six earlier RAT decisions submitted by the applicant. Those decisions involved appeals by people with Cabinda and FLEC connections. Justice Clark said the challenged decision did not show that the tribunal had individually considered, rejected or distinguished them, and that a formulaic passage in the decision suggested they may have been dismissed without further evaluation.
The judge rejected the other grounds at this leave stage. She said the applicant’s claim of persecution on return as a failed asylum seeker was relevant to subsidiary protection, not the asylum stage. She was satisfied that the alleged factual errors were not material or relevant, and said country-of-origin information need not be considered where a rational credibility finding makes it irrelevant.
The court granted leave on the medical-report ground, in part, and the ground concerning the earlier tribunal decisions. The applicant was directed to rephrase the ground to reflect the ruling. The judgment records that the judicial review proceedings began outside the usual 14-day period; the judge said she would extend time in normal circumstances if the merits warranted it.