G.S. v The International Protection appeals tribunal & Anor (Approved)

Factual and Procedural Background

The Applicant, a 31-year-old single man from Georgia, claimed international protection on the basis that he would face persecution or serious harm if returned to Georgia due to his conversion to the Jehovah's Witness faith. He submitted the required forms and attended interviews with the International Protection Office (IPO). During the IPO interview, significant doubts arose regarding the Applicant's credibility, particularly his knowledge of the Jehovah's Witness faith, which was inconsistent with country of origin information (COI). The IPO recommended refusal of refugee status and subsidiary protection based on these negative credibility findings.

The Applicant appealed this recommendation to the International Protection Appeals Tribunal (IPAT), which affirmed the IPO's decision and refused an oral hearing. The IPAT's decision emphasized the Applicant's lack of credible evidence supporting his conversion and the absence of a well-founded fear of persecution. The Applicant then sought judicial review of the IPAT decision.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the IPAT erred in law by failing to properly consider material country of origin information relevant to the treatment of Jehovah's Witnesses in assessing the Applicant's credibility.
2. Whether the IPAT irrationally or disproportionately relied on the Applicant's lack of knowledge of the Jehovah's Witness religion and his motives for conversion.
3. Whether the IPAT applied the correct standard of proof in assessing the Applicant's claim that he was assaulted on account of his religious belief.

Arguments of the Parties

Applicant's Arguments

• The IPAT failed to consider specific country of origin information submitted supporting the existence of discrimination against Jehovah's Witnesses in Georgia.
• The IPAT irrationally and disproportionately relied on the Applicant's lack of religious knowledge and his motives for conversion, despite limited questioning on these points.
• The IPAT erred by not engaging with the Applicant's responses to detailed questions about the faith and by applying an incorrect standard of proof regarding the assaults allegedly suffered on religious grounds.

Respondents' Arguments

• The IPAT considered all documentation and COI submitted but found the Applicant's lack of credible knowledge fatal to his claim of conversion.
• The rejection of the Applicant's religious conversion was rational and supported by the Applicant's own inconsistent and incorrect answers during the interview.
• The IPAT's conclusions were reasoned, proportionate, and based on the evidence before it, including the Applicant's own statements and objective COI.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court applied the substantial grounds test for judicial review leave, requiring that the grounds be reasonable, arguable, and weighty rather than trivial or tenuous. The Court found that the IPAT had considered all submitted documentation and COI, and that the Applicant failed to identify any specific document or evidence that was not considered or that could have materially affected the decision.

The Court noted the detailed questioning of the Applicant regarding his professed religious faith and found that the Applicant's responses were generalised, non-specific, and inconsistent with established country of origin information about Jehovah's Witness beliefs and practices. The Applicant's failure to demonstrate credible conversion was a rational basis for the IPAT's rejection of his claim.

The Court rejected the Applicant's argument that the IPAT disproportionately relied on a single question about his motives for conversion, noting that this was only one of many questions and that the IPAT made no further specific comment on motives. The Court also found no merit in the contention that the IPAT erred in considering the Applicant's lack of baptism or in relying on his lack of religious knowledge, given the length of time since his claimed conversion.

Regarding the claim of assault on religious grounds, the Court emphasized that since the Applicant was found not to have converted credibly, the IPAT reasonably concluded that the assaults were not shown to be motivated by religion. The Applicant's assertion alone, without factual basis, was insufficient to establish an arguable error in law or fact.

Overall, the Court found the IPAT's decision to be reasoned, rational, and proportionate, supported by the evidence before it, and not unlawful.

Holding and Implications

The Court REFUSED LEAVE to proceed with judicial review of the IPAT decision.

This decision directly upholds the IPAT's refusal to grant refugee status or subsidiary protection to the Applicant. No new legal precedent was established, and the ruling affirms the application of the substantial grounds test in the context of judicial review of international protection decisions, emphasizing the importance of credible evidence and reasoned tribunal decisions.