The High Court has refused an anonymised applicant’s challenge to decisions refusing him international protection and leave to remain, holding that he had an adequate alternative remedy through an appeal to the International Protection Appeals Tribunal (IPAT).
In a judgment delivered electronically on 5 February 2025, Mr Justice Barr said the applicant had already lodged an appeal with IPAT. That appeal would provide a full de novo hearing at which he could raise issues and submit further evidence. The court found no exceptional basis to allow judicial review of the first-instance decision while the statutory appeal remained available.
The applicant, a Somali national, argued that the International Protection Office had failed to consider whether his Gabooye clan membership put him at risk of persecution or serious harm on return to Somalia. He also challenged the refusal of leave to remain, which the parties accepted depended on the protection decision. The respondents objected that judicial review was inappropriate because of the statutory appeal.
The judge said the protection decision had not specifically assessed risk arising from clan membership, but found that the applicant had not made that case in his protection application. The documents principally described a fear of Al Shabaab. The judgment records that the applicant said he and his brother were abducted after their teacher sought to recruit them, that his father was killed, and that his brother was executed after attempting to escape. The judge noted references to discrimination linked to clan membership, including an account of schoolchildren not addressing the applicant and his brother as “cousin”, but concluded that the applicant had not claimed clan-based persecution or serious harm.
The applicant also argued that the decision maker should have considered a September 2022 UNHCR report about the Gabooye clan. The judge held that this issue fell away because the clan-based risk claim had not been articulated. He added that the report did not establish that this applicant would face persecution in his area of origin, and that the issue could be raised on appeal.
The court also rejected challenges to the assessment of the applicant’s claimed village of origin and risk from indiscriminate violence. It said the decision maker had considered whether he would face such harm even if he came from the area he claimed. A further argument that interview answers about recruitment had been misconstrued was, the judge said, an alleged error within jurisdiction that should be pursued on appeal.
The court refused the relief sought and declined to set aside either the 15 August 2023 protection decision or the 22 August 2023 refusal of leave to remain. The parties were invited to make written submissions on final orders, costs and anonymisation before a mention listed for 26 February 2025. The judgment does not state the final order or costs outcome.