The High Court has extended the time for an anonymised Somali asylum seeker to bring judicial review proceedings and granted her leave to challenge the Refugee Appeals Tribunal’s decision that she should not be declared a refugee.
Mr Justice Ryan said the proceedings had been issued about a month outside the statutory time limit. He accepted that the applicant formed the intention to appeal within time and had given a reasonable explanation for the delay.
The applicant, born in Mogadishu in 1968, said she belonged to the minority Reer Hamar clan and had faced threats linked to her campaigning against female genital mutilation. She claimed she would risk death, rape and other persecution if returned to Somalia. Those claims were part of her account, not findings by the High Court.
The tribunal rejected her asylum appeal after an oral hearing in June 2006. It issued its decision about 21 months later, after the applicant had brought separate proceedings seeking to compel a decision. The tribunal member had explained that she delayed because conditions in Somalia were changing rapidly, and said she felt forced to decide based on information she considered insufficient and unsatisfactory.
In the judicial review application, the applicant argued that the tribunal relied on a May 2007 UK Home Office report containing an interview with a Somali researcher without giving her an opportunity to respond. She also argued that the tribunal failed to properly assess more recent country information and the risks faced by Reer Hamar people, and mishandled her claim concerning gender.
Justice Ryan found substantial grounds to argue that relying on the interview without notice breached fair procedures and the tribunal’s statutory duty to disclose the nature and source of relevant information. He also found substantial grounds to argue that the tribunal had not properly engaged with November 2007 Home Office materials describing risks to the Reer Hamar beyond threats from one particular clan. The court said this raised an issue about whether the tribunal had applied the required forward-looking assessment and considered the differential impact of the risks on the applicant.
The court did not grant leave on the separate argument that the applicant’s gender should have been treated as a particular social group. It found she had not established substantial grounds on that point.
The order extends time and grants leave on the specified grounds, including the additional ground that the tribunal decided the case when it believed it lacked sufficient information to do so properly and fairly. This is permission to pursue judicial review, not a final ruling quashing the tribunal decision or granting refugee status. The court refused to direct that the appeal be reheard by the same tribunal member, saying the choice was for the tribunal chairperson under the statute. It noted that all issues would be open on a rehearing.