Tribunal not obliged to list every argument being rejected in subsidiary protection refusal

Judicial review – asylum and immigration – substantive decision - challenge to the decision of the International Protection Appeals Tribunal refusing subsidiary protection – Ghanaian national fled to South Africa due to persecution – married in South Africa – wife died – became a South African citizen - attacked by his wife’s family – formed a new relationship and came to Ireland - credibility findings – rationale for findings clearly set out – failed to demonstrate that the tribunal’s findings were unfair and irrational – role of High Court in judicial review - no suggestion that there is any obligation to specify the weight of each factor in a negative decision – no evidence that the tribunal ignored the guidelines relating to the assessment of credibility produced by the UNHCR and IPAT itself - a matter for the decision-maker to decide whether or not the omission of important matters goes to credibility, especially where the decision-maker sees and hears the applicant - any contradiction between the various accounts offered by an applicant is a matter for the tribunal to assess - tribunal is not obligated to somehow refer the matter back to the commissioner or the Minister - tribunal is not required to set out each element of the applicant’s narrative are deemed credible or incredible - a decision-maker is not obliged to list every argument which he is rejecting or every fact the significance of which he is discounting – tribunal does have a duty to consider the risk of future harm, but no credible risk of exposure to future harm in South Africa could arise from his South African nationality – ethnic origin considered – judicial review refused.