Judgment by Mr. Justice Heslin. The Applicant sought to quash a decision by the International Protection Appeals Tribunal(IPAT) which upheld an earlier decision to deny them International Protection.
The Applicant challenges that decision on adverse credibility was found unlawfully. The Court stated it is not in the position to be the decision maker of policy, but instead is to oversee if the law was followed or the rights of the applicant were violated. The Court found that IPAT came to its decisions while accepting some facts as incontrovertible and looking at all available evidence.
The Court found that IPAT’s findings of negative credibility were well within light of them to find and they were under no obligation, unlike what the Applicant argued, to set out a fuller analysis of the documentary evidence. The Court also ruled that IPAT did not require the Applicant to report serious incidents to the police, but rather the tribunal came to the conclusion that base don the provided evidence, if the events in question did occur, it was not reasonable for the Applicant to not report these events to the police.
Furthermore, the Court rejected the Applicant’s argument that despite changing his statement in evidence, he still had credibility. In conclusion, the Court found that the Applicant fell short of demonstrating that the adverse credibility findings were reached unlawfully and that the Tribunal conducted themselves in any state other giving fair assessment to all the provided evidence.
For Full Case :