The High Court has dismissed a judicial review challenging the refusal of subsidiary protection to F.M., a national of the Democratic Republic of Congo, and a deportation order made against him. The court did not decide whether the challenge to the deportation order was out of time, saying it was unnecessary to do so after rejecting the application on its merits.
F.M. applied for asylum in September 2008, citing his half-Tutsi ethnicity and a fear of persecution in the DRC. The Refugee Applications Commissioner found his account lacking in credibility and implausible. The Refugee Appeals Tribunal rejected his appeal in April 2010, citing inconsistencies, credibility concerns and a birth certificate showing a different date of birth from the one first given. It also found that a well-founded risk of persecution on return had not been established. The Minister refused refugee status in June 2010.
F.M. applied for subsidiary protection and permission to remain in July 2010. The subsidiary protection application was refused in April 2011, and a deportation order followed in June 2011. The refusal relied on country information and accepted the earlier credibility findings. It also concluded that ethnic Tutsis did not face a particular risk of mistreatment in the DRC.
In the judicial review, the applicant challenged both decisions on numerous grounds, including alleged failures to cooperate, consider representations and medical material, provide an effective remedy, and assess country information properly. His barrister accepted that some arguments had been rejected in earlier cases or were repetitions of other grounds. The judgment records that some points were abandoned or not pursued as pleaded.
Mr Justice Richard Humphreys found that many grounds were vague, repeated other arguments or raised issues not set out in the statement of grounds. He said the applicant had not shown that representations were ignored, that country information was unlawfully read selectively, or that the decision-maker had failed to consider relevant material. The court also rejected the argument that judicial review was ineffective because it could not itself grant subsidiary protection, noting that a flawed decision could be sent back for reconsideration.
The applicant relied on another High Court case concerning conditions in Kinshasa. The judge said that case was under appeal and could not be treated as a general finding about conditions in the DRC or as determinative in this case. Each case, he said, must be assessed on its own evidence.
The judge noted that the deportation-order challenge was out of time and that no explanation had been provided by affidavit, but did not rule on the point. The application was dismissed.