Member Login

Finding that applicant is not entitled to international protection is unimpeachable

By: Hannah Godfrey BL

or click here to request site subscription to search and view all judgments

High Court refuses challenge to respondent's affirmation of International Protection Office's recommendation that applicant not be given refugee declaration or declaration of subsidiary protection, on the grounds that: (a) an objective and common-sense reading of the respondent’s decision showed that it had rejected the credibility of the applicant’s claims on the basis of the various inconsistencies identified in the decision; and (b) the approach of the respondent had been unimpeachable where it had conducted a careful analysis of the applicant’s contentions, highlighted the clear and material inconsistencies in his various accounts, and attached weight to the absence of any documentation.

Judicial review - challenge to respondent's affirmation of International Protection Office's recommendation that applicant not be given refugee declaration or declaration of subsidiary protection - applicant is Georgian national - contention by applicant that he was entitled to refugee protection where he owed money to various creditors, had been verbally and physically threatened in connection with same and feared further attack, persecution and serious harm if he returned to Georgia - IPO found that applicant's claims were not credible - respondent upheld IPO decision on appeal, giving detailed decision setting out inconsistencies in applicant's evidence - whether respondent erred in not assessing claim but merely identifying inconsistencies - whether respondent acted irrationally - whether respondent acted in breach of fair procedures.

Note: This is intended to be a fair and accurate report of a decision made public by a court of law. Any errors should be notified to the editor and will be dealt with accordingly.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *