The High Court has dismissed a judicial review application by S.A., a man born in Ghana who later became a South African citizen, challenging the refusal of his subsidiary protection claim. The court did not rehear the protection claim; it considered whether the tribunal’s decision could be quashed on the grounds advanced.
The International Protection Appeals Tribunal affirmed the refusal on 26 May 2017. The applicant sought an order of certiorari to quash that decision. Justice Richard Humphreys delivered judgment on 1 February 2018 and dismissed the application.
The applicant said he had faced threats and attacks in South Africa, including an attack in 2008 in which he said his leg was broken. He also claimed that a mob was led to him in January 2012. He said he reported an attack to police but no action was taken. These were his claims as recounted in the judgment, not findings made by the High Court.
The court considered seven issues raised by the applicant. It rejected the argument that the tribunal had dismissed his account relating to Ghana solely because of credibility findings about events in South Africa. The judgment said the tribunal had also found the Ghana account unsupported by documentary evidence and had declined to give him the benefit of the doubt in light of its assessment of his South African account.
The judge found that the applicant had not shown that the tribunal’s findings were unfair or irrational. He said judicial review was not a rehearing on the merits, and the tribunal was not required to state the weight assigned to every element of a cumulative decision or to identify every rejected detail individually.
The court also rejected arguments that the tribunal had ignored credibility guidelines, had a duty to refer contradictions back for further investigation, or had failed to consider supporting documents. The judgment said the tribunal had considered the documents submitted, and was not obliged to address every item as if checking off a list.
On future risk, the judge said the tribunal had considered whether the applicant faced harm in South Africa because of his Ghanaian origins. The tribunal had concluded that xenophobic attacks were not sufficiently widespread to establish a real risk of serious harm to him solely on that basis. The High Court found no basis to quash the decision and dismissed the application.