The High Court has rejected a Somali man’s attempt to overturn the refusal of refugee status, finding that two separate errors in the protection process did not require his case to be reheard.
The applicant, identified as I.D., claimed that his opposition to Al-Shabaab had made him a target and that the group had bombed his workplace. The International Protection Office refused refugee status but recommended subsidiary protection because of the risk of serious harm from indiscriminate violence in Somalia. The Minister subsequently granted that protection.
I.D. appealed the refugee decision. At a Tribunal hearing in December 2023, he was asked for further evidence confirming the alleged bombing. Within a week he supplied his solicitor with letters from his employer and a member of the Somali Federal Parliament, but those documents were not forwarded to the Tribunal.
The Tribunal later refused refugee status and mistakenly also stated that subsidiary protection was refused. That second finding was outside the scope of the appeal because subsidiary protection had already been granted.
The Tribunal corrected the error by issuing an addendum and removing the substantive references to refusing subsidiary protection. Gearty J held that this was a correction permitted under Regulation 10 of the 2017 appeal regulations, not a reopening of the case.
The judge also rejected the argument that the Tribunal was obliged to reopen the appeal to consider the late documents. Regulation 10 permits correction of errors or omissions but does not authorise a rehearing or the admission of new evidence after a decision has been made.
On the refugee claim itself, the court found no irrationality. The Tribunal was entitled to regard the absence of the promised documentation as undermining credibility, particularly because the applicant had made a specific claim about a targeted bomb attack.
The refusal of refugee status therefore remains in place. The applicant retains subsidiary protection. The court’s preliminary view was that the respondents should receive their costs, subject to further submissions.