The High Court granted a Sudanese applicant leave to seek judicial review of a decision refusing her refugee status, finding substantial grounds to challenge how some of her credibility evidence was considered. The ruling does not decide whether she is entitled to refugee status or quash the refusal at this stage.
Ms Justice Irvine also extended the time for bringing the proceedings. They were filed outside the 14-day statutory period, but the judge cited the brief delay, a change of solicitors, the speed with which the applicant’s lawyers then processed the case, and the nature and strength of the proposed challenge.
The applicant said her claim for refugee status was based on alleged political activity with the Sudanese Republican Party and work with the Women’s Charity Association, which she said provided cover for her political activities. She alleged that Sudanese authorities arrested and tortured her on several occasions, and that she escaped custody in February 2007 before leaving Sudan. Those were her claims; the court was considering whether she could proceed with judicial review of the refusal, not determining those allegations.
One proposed ground concerned the Tribunal Member’s statement that the country information submitted with her appeal dealt with persecution in Darfur and that she had not said she was from Darfur. Justice Irvine found substantial grounds to argue that the decision maker may not have considered the full country information, including material about the treatment of political groups opposed to the Sudanese government. She said references elsewhere in the decision to human rights abuses and relevant documents did not resolve that concern at the leave stage.
The judge also allowed the applicant to pursue arguments about two adverse credibility findings. One concerned why her politically active brother had allegedly been arrested once while she said she had been arrested four times. The applicant said she had explained that her brother was more cautious. The judge found substantial grounds to argue that the decision did not show that this explanation had been properly considered.
The other finding concerned the Women’s Charity Association. The applicant said she had explained that she used the organisation as cover for work on behalf of the political party. Justice Irvine found substantial grounds to argue that the Tribunal Member may have misunderstood or ignored that explanation.
However, the judge rejected the claim that a separate finding about whether the applicant had been fed in hospital rested on a material mistake of fact. She considered that finding non-operative and did not grant relief on that basis.
The order grants leave to apply for judicial review on specified grounds. It is permission to bring the challenge, not a final ruling on its outcome.