S.N. (Ghana) v The International Protection Appeals Tribunal & ors (Approved)

Factual and Procedural Background

The Applicant, born in 1978 in The State of Ghana, claims to have been raised in a pagan tradition before converting to Christianity. The Applicant alleges a familial connection to a traditional chief who died in 2001 and was asked to assume this chieftainship role in 2016. The Applicant provided multiple and inconsistent accounts regarding the succession and governance between 2001 and 2016. He stated his unwillingness to participate in pagan rituals and alleged that following physical violence and threats, he reported to the police. Subsequently, elders allegedly organized a mob to pursue him using a white powdered substance.

The Applicant fled The State and, with assistance from an unidentified individual, arrived in The City on 24 May 2016. He applied for asylum in The City, which was refused on 18 November 2016. He appealed to the Refugee Appeals Tribunal and, following the enactment of the International Protection Act 2015, applied for subsidiary protection, which was refused on 22 November 2017. He appealed this refusal to the International Protection Appeals Tribunal (IPAT).

An oral hearing occurred on 7 March 2018, after which the Applicant was notified on 23 April 2018 that his appeals had failed. The Applicant sought judicial review, granted leave on 25 June 2018, primarily seeking certiorari of the tribunal decision. The Respondents filed a statement of opposition on 12 December 2018. The judgment was delivered by Judge Humphreys on 11 January 2019.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the International Protection Appeals Tribunal erred by applying an unduly Western perspective and failing to properly consider the cultural context of The State in assessing the Applicant’s claim under section 28(4)(b) and (c) of the International Protection Act 2015.
2. Whether the tribunal’s finding regarding the succession to the chieftaincy was irrational or erroneous given the Applicant’s inconsistent accounts.
3. Whether the tribunal erred or acted irrationally in its assessment of the Applicant’s persecution claim, including the alleged tracking by a white powder and resulting eye damage.
4. Whether the tribunal’s findings were unfair, erroneous, or irrational due to alleged Western bias and the identification of inconsistencies in the Applicant’s account.
5. Whether the tribunal selectively or irrationally read the material regarding the chieftaincy claim.
6. Whether the tribunal failed to properly assess the actual subsidiary protection claim made by the Applicant.

Arguments of the Parties

Applicant's Arguments

• The Applicant contended that the tribunal applied an inappropriately Western viewpoint, disregarding the cultural context of The State.
• The Applicant argued that reliance on a translator compromised the fairness of the proceedings.
• He challenged the tribunal’s rejection of his account due to inconsistent versions of the chieftaincy succession.
• The Applicant submitted that elements of his persecution claim independent of the “white powder” tracking should have been considered for protection.
• The Applicant alleged unfairness and irrationality in the tribunal’s findings, attributing these to Western bias.
• He claimed the tribunal failed to properly assess the subsidiary protection claim as made.

Respondents' Arguments

• The Respondents maintained that the tribunal properly considered all relevant country and cultural information and applied established legal principles.
• They argued that the use of a translator did not give rise to grounds for judicial review as there was no evidence of mistranslation.
• The Respondents submitted that the tribunal was entitled to reject the Applicant’s inconsistent accounts as undermining credibility.
• They contended that the tribunal considered all relevant aspects of the persecution claim, including the Applicant’s failure to provide medical evidence for alleged eye damage.
• The Respondents asserted that the tribunal’s findings were reasonable and consistent with international protection standards and domestic procedural safeguards.
• They argued that the subsidiary protection claim was properly assessed against facts accepted by the tribunal, consistent with the statutory framework.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court undertook a thorough analysis of the Applicant’s claims, focusing on the credibility and consistency of his account within the cultural context of The State. It acknowledged established legal principles cautioning against reliance on Western notions of probability and reasonableness when assessing asylum claims. However, the court found that the tribunal properly considered relevant country information and cultural factors as required by the International Protection Act 2015 and European directives.

The court emphasized the institutional expertise and structured procedural safeguards of the tribunal, including guidelines, training, and coordinated decision-making processes designed to mitigate individual biases. It rejected the Applicant’s assertion that reliance on a translator compromised the fairness of the hearing, noting absence of evidence of mistranslation.

The tribunal’s rejection of the Applicant’s story was based on multiple inconsistent versions of the succession to the chieftaincy, undermining credibility rather than cultural misunderstanding. The tribunal also considered medical evidence and inconsistencies regarding alleged physical harm, concluding that the Applicant failed to substantiate claims of persecution adequately.

The court further held that the tribunal was entitled to assess subsidiary protection claims against the facts it accepted, and no error arose from this approach. Overall, the tribunal’s decision was found to be reasoned, legitimate, and sustainable on judicial review principles.

Holding and Implications

The court’s final order was as follows:

• Time was extended for the making of the application up to the date on which it was made.
• The proceedings were dismissed.

The holding confirms the tribunal’s decision rejecting the Applicant’s asylum and subsidiary protection claims. The court found no unsustainable or culturally unreasonable basis for the tribunal’s findings, thereby upholding the existing decision without setting new precedent. The dismissal effectively ends the Applicant’s judicial review challenge, affirming the tribunal’s role and methodology in asylum determinations.