Tribunal failed to address the specific case advanced when refusing asylum application

Judicial review – asylum and immigration – substantive hearing – national from Republic of Guinea challenging the decision of the Refugee Appeals Tribunal refusing her refugee status - member of the Malinke ethnic group – husband and father-in-law were active politically – they were arrested and detained – father-in-law was later summarily executed – husband was detained for 2 and a half years - she was detained for two days, during which period she was tortured, drugged and repeatedly raped, before being released - obtained a job as a secretary in the accounting or finance department of the Guinean National Assembly - dealt with confidential files concerning the operations and budget of the National Assembly - military coup d’état - she was phoned by the deposed president and told to hide – told her that the military were looking for her in the belief that she held important documents concerning the functioning of the budget of the Assembly and documents concerning mining contracts – deposed president informed her that he had placed large amounts of money in bank accounts under her name – deposed president organised her travel to Mali – fled to Ireland - adverse credibility findings – assessment of credibility – whether she established a well-founded fear of persecution on the ground of political opinion – past persecution – basis for the tribunal’s finding that the past persecution suffered by her would not be repeated is not clear - Tribunal did not address her arguments that the military-led coup in 2008 was closely similar to that which occurred before and that she was at risk of persecution on account of imputed political belief - country of origin information – tribunal found that her evidence was credible and that she was entitled to the benefit of the doubt -  her case is that she has a fear based on her unique working relationship with the deposed president and her perceived personal relationship with him – case misrepresented by tribunal -  difficult to see the relevance of the finding that there was no evidence before the Tribunal of any harm suffered by, or risk of harm to, National Assembly administrative staff generally – tribunal identified her family as being in a similar position despite the fact that her family did not form part of her case – no express conclusion on  risk of future persecution – tribunal’s analysis of the nexus issue ignores her case - tribunal failed to address the specific case advanced – unreasonableness principles – judicial review granted.