Failure to properly consider Ethiopian national’s medical evidence in asylum application

Judicial review – telescoped hearing – Ethiopian national of Oromo ethnicity challenging the decision of the Refugee Appeals Tribunal to refuse her refugee status - her husband was a prominent member of the Oromo Liberation Front (OLF) - her village in Yaballo was attacked by the Guijii militia who were acting as a proxy militia for the Ethiopian State - in the attack, she was raped by two soldiers and was shot in the stomach as she attempted to flee - underwent surgery for removal of the bullet and a hysterectomy had to be performed - in hospital for three weeks - her husband was arrested and taken away, and she has not seen him since that time - claims that she was visited by the militia every second day and they questioned her about her husband’s activities - she escaped to another village - she claims that she was arrested by government forces and taken back to Yaballo where she was put in prison - kept in prison for six months - interrogated weekly and that this was followed by punching, kicking and beating with sticks – argued that the Tribunal failed to consider medical and psychological evidence - no medical evidence from her time in Ethiopia - furnished a SPIRASI report - submitted that this medical report significantly supported her claim - complains that this medical evidence was not considered in depth by the tribunal - no express reason was given for why the applicant’s credibility could be rejected in spite of the very strong physical evidence of the applicant having been shot and having been subjected to a hysterectomy in order to have the bullet removed - insofar as it could be inferred from the decision that a reason for rejecting the medical evidence in the SPIRASI report was that the applicant had failed to produce medical documentation from Ethiopia – argued that this was wholly inadequate as a basis for doubting the expert evidence contained in the medical report - cases in which decisions of the tribunal have been found to be invalid (or leave has been granted to argue that they were invalid) for failure to explain adequately why medical evidence with a direct bearing on credibility was rejected, or why the applicant’s account was not accepted in light of the medical evidence – argued that had the medical evidence been adequately considered in a reasoned manner, it could have tipped the balance in favour of the benefit of the doubt being applied – argued that none of the findings pertaining to credibility was of such force to outweigh the very strong medical evidence - decision maker was under an express obligation to deal specifically with the medical evidence and to give proper and adequate reasons for its rejection if it was not accepted – tribunal argued that the claim was not believed by the tribunal, and it was submitted that the SPIRASI report contained nothing capable of displacing that – court was satisfied that the SPIRASI report was a significant piece of evidence which supported the applicant’s core story and deserved to be considered carefully – found that if the tribunal was going to disregard or reject this evidence, there was a duty on it to give clear reasons why the report was being rejected – she argued that the tribunal failed to assess whether, even if the credibility of her narrative was not accepted, she, by reason of her Oromo ethnicity per se, would be at risk of persecution in Ethiopia in light of the country information – argued that the tribunal failed to assess the discreet aspect of the applicant’s claim of entitlement to refugee status by reason of her Oromo ethnicity per se – argued that the tribunal failed to have regard to relevant considerations and acted in breach of natural and constitutional justice - submitted that the decision was vitiated by a failure of the tribunal to make clear whether or not it was accepting the applicant’s claim to be an Oromo from Ethiopia – she argued that where country information indicates that there is a specific risk of persecution to a particular category of person simply by virtue of membership of that category, there is an obligation on the tribunal to consider and make a specific finding on a claim by an applicant to belong to that group of persons - the tribunal member ought to have made a finding as to whether or not the applicant was an Ethiopian of Oromo ethnicity - she submitted before the tribunal an affidavit from the OLF European Regional Office in Berlin and a letter from the Association of Oromo Community in Ireland – she argued that these documents prove, or at least tend to prove, the applicant’s Ethiopian nationality and Oromo ethnicity – argued that the tribunal erred in law in failing to conduct a rational analysis of the said documents and failed to explain on the basis of cogent and adequate reasons why, in the light of those documents, her credibility was not accepted or why the said documentary evidence was rejected - where an adverse credibility finding involves discounting or rejecting documentary evidence which is prima facie relevant to a fact pertinent to a material aspect of the credibility issue, the reasons for that rejection must be stated - the documentation was not of any great probative value, due to the fact that the deponent of the affidavit does not say that he knows her, or how he can make the averment that she was an “active supporter” of the OLF - tribunal held that the attack on her village in which the applicant claimed to have been shot and wounded, could not amount to past persecution of the applicant as the attack was indiscriminate – she had not been specifically targeted and she was at no greater risk than others caught up in the attack - deferential risk – argued that the tribunal erred in law when considering her of a politically-motivated and/or ethnically-motivated attack on her village – court satisfied that while it is possible to establish a right to refugee status by virtue of an attack, it is not necessary for an applicant to establish that they were targeted specifically in some way over and above the other persons in the attack - she had not made the case that she or her husband were specifically targeted in the attack.