The High Court has refused a Congolese woman’s application for judicial review of an International Protection Appeals Tribunal decision rejecting her claim for international protection, and ordered her to pay the respondents’ costs.
In a judgment delivered on 2 July 2021, Ms Justice Tara Burns found that the applicant had not established an error in the Tribunal’s decision-making process. The court did not reconsider her protection claim or make a new assessment of the risks she might face if returned to the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC).
The applicant said she had been involved with the Union for Democracy and Social Progress (UDPS) and had held a youth division vice-presidency. She alleged that she had been targeted because of her own political activity and her father’s activism. The Tribunal rejected much of her account but accepted that she was a former UDPS member and former youth vice-president. It concluded that the accepted facts, considered alongside country of origin information, did not establish a well-founded fear of persecution or a real risk of serious harm.
The judicial review challenge argued that the Tribunal had failed to assess the country information properly or give adequate reasons, and that its concerns about the applicant’s emotional wellbeing required further enquiries or a medical assessment. At the hearing, counsel also argued that the Tribunal had not determined whether she had been a party member or attended demonstrations. The judge said that issue was outside the grounds on which leave had been granted. She also found that, read as a whole, the Tribunal’s decision did determine those matters and treated them as aspects of the applicant’s former membership.
The judge held that the Tribunal had considered the accepted political activity and the country information. The court’s role was to review the decision-making process, not to substitute its own view of the evidence. No failure to consider relevant information or irrationality had been established, and the Tribunal’s reasons were clear.
On mental health, the judge said no evidence had been put before the court showing that the applicant’s ability to give evidence was affected. The Tribunal had adjourned when she appeared possibly to faint, but the judge found that no legal duty arose to make further enquiries or arrange a medical assessment.
The court therefore refused the relief sought and made an order for the respondents’ costs against the applicant.