The Applicant claimed asylum on the ground that as a homosexual man he had a well-founded fear of persecution in Georgia. The Tribunal found that he may have been at genuine risk of serious harm but did not accept that he had shown a failure of State protection. The applicant challenged this decision on the ground that the Tribunal erred in law and breached fair procedures in failing to examine his subjective fear for not seeking State protection.
The Court quashed the Tribunal’s decision, finding that the Tribunal had not addressed the question of whether State protection might reasonably have been forthcoming and had erred in law in concluding that the failure of the applicant to seek protection from the State authorities was in itself sufficient to defeat his claim. The Court further held that the Tribunal had erred in failing to consider whether the applicant’s evidence and the country of origin information were sufficient to rebut the presumption of State protection.