The High Court quashed a Refugee Appeals Tribunal decision refusing an asylum appeal and sent the case for fresh assessment by a different Tribunal Member. It found the Tribunal’s reasons unclear on the applicant’s central claims and said that uncertainty made it impossible to tell whether internal relocation had been properly considered.
The applicant, an anonymised Georgian national, said he faced danger as an ethnic Georgian from South Ossetia and later added that he feared the Georgian government because of security work for former president Eduard Shevardnadze. The Tribunal rejected his account on credibility grounds and said that, even if it were true, he could relocate to Tbilisi.
The High Court did not overturn the Tribunal’s individual credibility findings. It considered those findings open to the Tribunal in light of discrepancies in the applicant’s account of his journey to Ireland, the burning of his home and his previously undisclosed security work. But the court said the findings did not clearly resolve whether he was from South Ossetia or whether he had done the security work he described. The reasons did not show whether the Tribunal accepted that he had been a Georgian living in an area where he feared persecution, or whether it rejected that part of his account altogether.
The court also noted that the Tribunal decision did not refer to documents submitted by the applicant, including country information and photographs of a burned house. It said decision-makers should indicate that relevant documents were considered and explain why they were rejected. In this case, however, the omission alone was not substantial enough to invalidate an otherwise valid decision.
The relocation analysis was also inadequate in the circumstances. The court said that if the applicant’s fear of persecution in South Ossetia had been accepted, the Tribunal needed to assess the general conditions in Tbilisi and the applicant’s personal circumstances, including whether he and his family could find accommodation and access effective state protection. The Tribunal’s reference to his education and past time in Tbilisi was not enough. The court said relocation would have been inappropriate if the Tribunal had found no credible fear, and insufficiently examined if it had found such a fear.
The court did not decide whether the applicant qualified for refugee status. It directed that the Tribunal decision be quashed and the case reassessed by a different member. It also said the applicant’s changes in evidence and failure to clarify locations contributed to the difficulties and would be reflected in a reduction in costs awarded.