High Court refuses judicial review of the decision refusing a Ghanaian national subsidiary protection, on the grounds that the International Protection Appeals Tribunal did not reject the claim due to any unsustainable or culturally unreasonable basis, but on foot of at least eleven reasoned and entirely legitimate factors that were taken into account in rejecting his credibility.
Judicial review – asylum and immigration – Ghanaian national challenging the decision of the International Projections Tribunal refusing him subsidiary protection - claims he was reared in a pagan tradition and then converted to Christianity – refused to take on his deceased’s uncle’s role as tribe chief – multiple different accounts – refused asylum – applied for subsidiary protection – application refused and applied for judicial review – extension of time - tribunal applied an unduly Western perspective and failed to take into account the cultural context in Ghana in assessing the applicant’s claim - argument made under this heading does not arise on the facts - alleged error or irrationality in relation to succession to the chieftaincy - tribunal member was entitled to consider that the tension between the multiple versions of the story given by the applicant regarding devolution of the role and the requirement for nomination amounted to contradiction undermining the credibility of the account - alleged error or irrationality in relation to the persecution claim - tribunal did consider all relevant issues - alleged unfairness, error and irrationality - alleged unfairness, error and irrationality – alleged failure to assess the actual subsidiary protection claim made - at least eleven reasoned and entirely legitimate factors that were taken into account by the tribunal in rejecting the credibility - not a case where that account was rejected on any unsustainable or culturally unreasonable basis.