DAG v Refugee Appeals Tribunal & Ors

Respondent/Defendant:Refugee Appeals Tribunal & Ors
Court/s:High Court
Judgment Date/s:01 Jun 2006
Category:Refugee Law
Keywords:Refugee, Refugee Law, Refugee Status

The Tribunal dismissed the applicant’s appeal on the bases that he had not proved that he had lived in Afgooye, Somalia, or that he was of the Bandhabow ethnic group, as he claimed. The Commissioner had found the applicant to be lacking in credibility because of his failure to mention a specific water shortage documented in the country of origin information and because it considered that he had under-estimated the population in the region he claimed as his locality in his country of origin. The Tribunal affirmed this finding.

The Court, in granting leave for judicial review, held that it was arguable that the Tribunal’s decision had been made without regard to all the information before it and that the credibility findings against the applicant had been made in isolation from the extensive knowledge that the applicant otherwise demonstrated, such that the perceived inconsistency had to be assessed as immaterial. The Court also found that the finding that the applicant had failed to refer to the drought was factually incorrect.


It is arguable that for the purposes of credibility determinations in asylum applications, inconsistencies must be seen as immaterial where extensive knowledge is otherwise demonstrated.

Go Back