The High Court has quashed a decision refusing a Pakistani man international protection after finding that the appeals tribunal relied on a questionnaire that had not been disclosed to his solicitors.
Ms Justice Marguerite Bolger ordered the International Protection Appeals Tribunal (IPAT) to hold a fresh appeal hearing. The court did not decide whether the man qualifies for refugee status or subsidiary protection.
The man’s protection claim said he feared threats from the family of a man he had killed in Ireland. The International Protection Office (IPO) found his account credible in 2018 but refused subsidiary protection, concluding that state protection was available in Pakistan. IPAT later rejected his appeal, finding his evidence unreliable because of inconsistencies about alleged threats to his family and whether they had been reported to police.
In its decision, IPAT referred to a first protection questionnaire completed in May 2017, which said there had been no threats to the man’s family. His solicitors had not received that questionnaire despite seeking his full file. They learned of it through the tribunal decision. A second questionnaire, completed after his release from prison, referred to threats against his family.
The man argued that the tribunal should have disclosed the first questionnaire and given him a chance to address its contents. IPAT said it had not relied on the questionnaire in reaching its credibility finding.
Justice Bolger rejected the argument that the tribunal breached its cooperation duty by not warning the man that it might consider the absence of supporting evidence, such as affidavits from his family. She said that evidence could only have been provided by the applicant, and the tribunal was entitled to assess the material he submitted.
But the judge found that IPAT’s written decision did not support its claim that the first questionnaire had played no part in the credibility assessment. The questionnaire was discussed under a section on the man’s initial claim, and the decision referred to evidence considered “in the round”. The judge said it could not be ruled out that the outcome might have been different if the questionnaire had been disclosed and the tribunal had raised its concerns with him.
The court rejected a separate claim of material factual error. The disputed statement about police corruption was recorded as a submission by the presenting officer, not a finding by the tribunal.
The court quashed IPAT’s January 2023 decision and remitted the case for a fresh appeal hearing. Justice Bolger gave an indicative view that the applicant was entitled to his costs, subject to agreement or adjudication. Final orders were listed for November 12, 2024.