Pakistani family’s claim for refugee status was not considered with the requisite level of diligence and caution

Judicial review – telescoped hearing – Pakistani family challenging the decision of the Refugee Appeals Tribunal to refuse them refugee status - wife’s family is Sunni Muslim – they work for an extremist militant group and are of the Malik caste - husband is a Shia Muslim – he is from the Sayed caste, which is classified as inferior in Pakistan society - wife’s marriage to a third party had been arranged, but instead she married her husband without her family’s permission - allege that each of them has suffered assault and the daughter has also suffered abduction attempts - their limited financial circumstances constrained their ability to escape from the reign of terror - wife was assaulted - there was an attempted abduction of the daughter - their family home was attacked - the husband received a head injury - the extended family home was attacked and a cousin was killed - wife’s family is intent on taking some form of revenge on the daughter – tribunal found that the family lacked credibility, that state protection was available and they could have relocated internally - deal with this matter by determining the husband’s claim - Commissioner acknowledged that it was difficult to establish whether or not the events alleged by the applicants had occurred or not – however, tribunal’s decision comprised of a sweeping rejection of the applicants’ credibility – Commissioner determined that the family had not provided a reasonable response for delaying 7 months before seeking asylum – directed that any appeal be on the papers only – papers only appeal - court looks with heightened vigilance at the process of the documentary appeal in circumstances where an appellant has no opportunity to appear and explain or expand on any perceived inconsistencies or deficits in his/her claim - tribunal had no particular advantage over the court in the assessment of credibility of an appellant as the same papers are before the court as were considered by the tribunal - when considering a documents-only appeal, the standard required is of necessity one of extreme care as the tribunal member has no opportunity to form a personal impression of the applicant as at an oral hearing - the tribunal member’s decision can be criticised because he fails to engage with the explanation given by the applicant in relation to the finding that the applicant did not leave Pakistan at an earlier date - fairness requires the tribunal member would notify the applicants of any potential new finding and give him an opportunity to respond to it either by referring the matter back to the Commissioner or reconvening the s.11 interview and/or correspondence with the applicant and/or his legal representatives - tribunal member has an obligation to engage with the case made by the applicants - tribunal member appears to brush that aside by making sweeping statements in relation to the applicants’ credibility - tribunal member failed to engage or deal with the father’s explanations that he had approached the police on numerous occasions and the police would do nothing about their situation and give a reasoned decision for rejecting them as required - in considering relocation that the tribunal member must identify an area, notify that area to the applicants and consider the conditions there and ask the applicants if it is reasonable for the applicants to move/relocate there – the level of diligence and caution which must be applied to such a process and the careful consideration that ought to be applied to the documentary evidence upon which the appeal was based was absent.