Member Login

Tribunal’s adverse credibility findings were lawful

By: James Cross BL

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

High Court refuses judicial review of the decision refusing Bangladeshi national international protection, on the grounds that: the International Protection Appeals Tribunal's adverse credibility findings were lawful; the tribunal considered all relevant documents; and it lawfully considered the medical documentation.

Asylum and immigration – judicial review – Bangladeshi national challenging decision refusing him international protection – lived in the UK – never claimed international protection – refused renewal of student permission - came to the State and applied for international protection – illegible document - application refused – core credibility issues - inappropriateness of legalistic over-analysis of decisions - any administrative decision enjoys a presumption of validity and should be read in a manner that renders it valid rather than invalid - medical reports - benefit of the doubt - tribunal did not apply the incorrect test - report of a local village chairman - complaint that the document was not considered falls flat because it is clear from the terms of the decision that it was considered - no lack of reasons - impossibility, and therefore an absurdity, to require a decision maker to make a final assessment on the reliability of a document prior to considering the reliability of the person producing it - lack of credibility – adverse credibility decision is not irrational or unlawful - treatment of medical report of February 2017 - failure to lawfully consider the medical documentation - unreality to the legalistic point made - tribunal did not err in law or in fact in calling the medical documentation not material - a medical report can establish that an account could be true, but it does not establish who caused the injury or in what circumstances - alleged error in failing to state which medical report is unreliable where his credibility was condemned - allegation that the tribunal acted unlawfully in failing to advert to country information - lack of narrative consideration is not a lack of lawful consideration – 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.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published.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