or click here to request site subscription to search and view all judgments
High Court refuses judicial review of decision refusing international protection of applicant - who had two possible nationalities, made two asylum applications in different jurisdictions and had six names or aliases, on the grounds that: the International Protection Appeals Tribunal lawfully assessed his credibility and considered all relevant matters; and it would not be a legitimate procedure to quash a decision for failure to make enquiries when an applicant did not ask the decision-maker to make such enquiries.
Judicial review - asylum and immigration - South African national challenging decision refusing him international protection - two possible nationalities, two asylum applications in different jurisdictions, six names or aliases, seven adverse immigration or protection decisions, nine convictions and custodial sentences - claims to be a national of Zimbabwe - alleged nationality was rejected by the tribunal - claims that he suffered persecution due to family involvement with the MDC – asylum application in UK rejected – convicted of handling stolen goods, possession of a false instrument and failing to surrender after bail, for which he received a custodial sentence - convicted of drink driving, obstructing the police and driving while disqualified – received custodial sentences – deported – claims that a Zimbabwean passport issued - tribunal held that this was an “unreliable” document - exclusion order made – take back request – extension of time - irrationality, conjecture and error – alleged failure by the tribunal to make further enquiries - no particular duty to investigate under the qualification directive is pleaded - tribunal did consider all relevant matters very carefully - would not be a legitimate procedure to quash a decision for failure to make enquiries when an applicant did not ask the decision-maker to make such enquiries - tribunal assessed his credibility in a lawful manner – judicial review refused.
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.