The Refugee Appeals Tribunal refused the applicant’s appeal, finding that there were material inconsistencies in his evidence both in his questionnaire and in his interview for asylum. The applicant acknowledged that he had been untruthful at his first instance interview but contended that the information he provided in his questionnaire was correct and that the Tribunal had erred in fact with regard to the matters it considered in its adverse credibility finding.
The respondents accepted that there were two errors of fact in the matters set out by the Tribunal in its decision, specifically the Tribunal’s findings that the applicant had misrepresented the location of his wife and that the applicant had stated that his business and car were destroyed.
The Court granted leave for judicial review finding that if a decision-maker is assessing the credibility of an applicant and makes its decision based on an incorrect undisputed fact then unless it can be established that the incorrect fact is clearly so insignificant that it would not be material to the decision-maker, there is a potential breach of the obligation to observe fair procedures, and it may be asserted that the decision is unreasonable for being based on erroneous fact.
