The High Court dismissed Zola Nanizaya’s judicial review challenge to the Minister for Justice and Equality’s refusal of subsidiary protection, finding that none of his grounds justified overturning the decision.
Nanizaya, a national of the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), applied for asylum in June 2008. His claim relied on alleged membership of the Bunda di Congo and a claimed risk of persecution on return. The Refugee Applications Commissioner rejected his account on credibility grounds, and the Refugees Appeals Tribunal also disbelieved it. The Minister refused subsidiary protection in March 2011, relying on the Tribunal’s credibility findings. The High Court had granted leave for judicial review in July 2011.
Nanizaya argued that the Minister failed to properly consider a medical report from the Centre for Care of Survivors of Torture, which recorded post-traumatic stress disorder and physical findings. The judgment described the report’s physical findings as “consistent” with the account and its mental health findings as “highly consistent.” The court said the Minister had considered the documents previously before the Tribunal, which included the report, and was not required to refer to it expressly in the decision. Given the earlier credibility findings, the court found no obligation to give Nanizaya the benefit of the doubt on his account of past harm.
He also argued that he was not given a chance to comment on country of origin information (COI) used by the Minister to assess indiscriminate violence in the DRC. The court found that the Minister’s report was an updated version of United Nations Security Council material Nanizaya had submitted, rather than new or different information. The Minister had concluded that most of the DRC remained free of armed conflict outside its eastern regions, and that the general level of indiscriminate violence did not put returnees across many parts of the country at risk. He also considered Nanizaya’s individual circumstances and found no personal risk.
The court held that no general rule required the Minister to disclose publicly available, updated country information for comment. It said a duty to invite a response could arise where private or entirely new material radically altered the basis of a claim, but that was not the case here. It also rejected the argument that the Minister’s process breached the principle of equivalence between procedures.
The application for judicial review was dismissed. The court did not grant relief against the Minister’s refusal of subsidiary protection.