High Court refuses judicial review of the decision refusing a national from the Democratic Republic of Congo refugee status, on the grounds that she failed to comply with the rules of court governing affidavits sworn by persons who do not understand English, and that the Refugee Appeals Tribunal, having determined that her claim was fundamentally lacking credibility, did not have to consider country of origin information.
Judicial review – asylum and immigration – telescoped hearing – national from the Democratic Republic of Congo challenging the decision of the Refugee Appeals Tribunal to refuse her refugee status - claim to fear persecution from state agents in the DRC on the ground of political opinion – travelled abroad with her employer on business trips - employer began an affair with a general – general attempted a coup – she was arrested – claimed that she was using her trips abroad to drum up support – claimed that she was involved in the coup - detained for thirty-three days - raped, sexually abused and intimidated – managed to escape – refused asylum – adverse credibility grounds – argued that the Tribunal is obliged to consider objective country of origin information before reaching reasoned conclusions as regards the applicant’s general credibility - EU law interpretation – argued that the decision should be quashed for failure to comply with minimum standards as mandated by European law under the Qualification Directive – in the alternative she sought a reference to the European Court of Justice – whether having found her story to be wholly unbelievable, is the Tribunal obliged to consider country of origin information before refusing refugee status - conflict between judgments of the High Court - Rules of the Superior Courts governing the swearing of affidavits where the deponent does not understand English - no authoritative basis to believe that she understood the English language sufficiently well-enough to be able to swear a grounding affidavit in the English language - Court determined that more could have been done to ensure that her level of comprehension of the English language was correctly ascertained and brought in evidence to the Court – no need to consider country of origin information where the Tribunal determines that the applicant is fundamentally lacking in credibility - law in this area is clear and established.