The High Court refused an Iranian applicant leave to seek judicial review of a Refugee Appeals Tribunal decision that upheld a negative recommendation on his asylum claim, finding that no substantial ground had been shown to challenge the credibility assessment.
The ruling, delivered by Mr Justice Cooke on 14 October 2011, concerned an appeal decision dated 22 October 2008. The Tribunal had rejected the applicant’s claim that his political activity with a group called the “Sun Group” put him at risk of persecution if returned to Iran. The applicant said he had printed and distributed leaflets, posted material online and had been arrested, detained and tortured before leaving Iran in October 2006.
The Commissioner’s 2007 report and the Tribunal’s decision rested on doubts about that account, including the absence of independent evidence that the group existed or that the applicant had been involved in it. The applicant challenged nine aspects of the Tribunal’s reasoning, arguing that some relied on factual errors, mistaken assumptions or matters that should have been put to him for comment.
The court acknowledged an admitted error about the applicant’s sister: the Tribunal had treated her as 12 when she left Iran, although the evidence was that she was older and the applicant was 12 at the time. It also considered possible discrepancies arising from interpretation or translation, including dates and accounts of events around the applicant’s arrest.
But the judge assessed the decision as a whole. He said the central concern was the gap between the applicant’s claimed internet-based political activity and the lack of corroboration, despite the issue having been identified in the Commissioner’s report. The court considered the Tribunal’s reasoning on the evidence and the applicant’s inability to provide supporting material. It concluded that the errors and possible misunderstandings, individually and together, did not materially undermine the overall assessment.
The court’s decision was limited to the application for leave to seek judicial review. It refused leave because no substantial ground had been made out; it did not itself determine the underlying asylum claim.