Reasons for refusal of asylum for Zimbabwean national were discernible and adverse credibility findings were rational

Judicial review - Zimbabwean national challenging the decision of the Refugee Appeals Tribunal to refuse her refugee status – claims that she fears persecution owing to her involvement with the main opposition party in Zimbabwe – she was visited by the authorities on three occasions – she was beaten and interrogated - on one particular occasion she was taken to the police station by the CIO (Zimbabwean Secret Police), where she was beaten and interrogated about her membership of the MDC - fled to the UK - returned to Zimbabwe - authorities had come to her home seeking her passport as they believed she had been raising funds for the MDC whilst in the UK - authorities came to the company and took everyone away to a farm - she was beaten unconscious with sticks by the authorities - believes she may have been raped during this time and states that she has been diagnosed with AIDS since she arrived in Ireland - came to her house and told her she had to denounce the MDC - when the authorities left her house, the applicant claims she made arrangements to flee Zimbabwe – her testimony was overwhelmingly disbelieved on the grounds of a lack of credibility – she argued that the tribunal decision is not adequately reasoned – argued that the tribunal member failed to assess or engage with the basic premise of the her claim – argued that the tribunal failed to engage with the supporting documentation - tribunal failed to assess her forward-looking fear - argued that the assessment of her credibility was unlawful – argued that the consideration of the Garda report was unlawful – argued that there was a failure to adequately weigh the country of origin information with regard to her HIV positive status - requirement on the tribunal to carry out the forward looking test – duty to give reasons - assessment of credibility in asylum claims – argued that the tribunal placed considerable weight on her failure to apply for asylum in the U.K. when she was there and failing to assess her explanation as to why she did not apply – that findings in respect of her passport and MDC membership card were based on ‘gut feeling’, with a lack of proper reasoning - objected to the use of the Garda report in her case on the basis of hearsay and as the experience and qualifications of the Garda who made the report were not disclosed - failure of the tribunal member to make a request for further information pursuant to s. 16(6) of the Refugee Act 1996 was unlawful in the circumstances - where there is competing evidence before the tribunal member as to a particular issue, there is an obligation on the tribunal member to indicate why one piece of evidence or report is preferred to another – findings of the tribunal are rational and, where inferences are drawn, these were supported by the evidence before the tribunal – reasons provided by the tribunal were sufficient.