The High Court has granted B.A. leave to seek judicial review of an asylum-related decision, finding substantial grounds to argue that the Refugee Applications Commissioner should have put new adverse information to him before relying on it.
B.A. attended an interview with the commissioner on 9 November 2015 about his asylum claim. The commissioner later made enquiries with his bank and the Registrar of Civil Marriages. Those enquiries suggested he had additional personal identifying documents that he had not disclosed.
The commissioner did not return to B.A. for comment on that information, and then drew what the judgment describes as “very significant adverse consequences” from it. Justice Richard Humphreys said the conclusions were so fundamental and significant that there were substantial grounds to argue the information should have been specifically put to B.A.
The judge applied the substantial grounds test for leave under section 5 of the Illegal Immigrants (Trafficking) Act 2000. He said not every failure to put new information to an applicant would be fatal, but found that the circumstances here supported a challenge to the commissioner’s decision without first exhausting the usual appeal to the tribunal. He described the case as potentially within the exceptional circumstances recognised in an earlier judgment.
The court granted leave to apply for judicial review on grounds E(v) and E(vi) of the grounding statement, for the reliefs set out at paragraph D. It refused leave on the remaining grounds. This was a decision on permission to bring the judicial review, not a final ruling on whether the underlying decision was unlawful.
The applicant also argued that the panel member had a role in the investigation. The judge refused leave on that point, relying on the reasons given in a separate judgment delivered on 14 November 2016.