AR v IMMIGRATION AND PROTECTION TRIBUNAL [2017] NZHC 2039

AR v IMMIGRATION AND PROTECTION TRIBUNAL [2017] NZHC 2039

The Tribunal did not err in law or fact: it lawfully conducted a holistic credibility assessment distinguishing core from peripheral inconsistencies, reasonably rejected the applicant's account on the cumulative weight of material inconsistencies and lack of veracity on core matters, and the court properly refused...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2017] NZAR 1524
Parties
Applicant/appellant: AR; First Respondent: Immigration and Protection Tribunal; Second Respondent/respondent: Refugee and Protection Officer
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
24 August 2017
Procedural Posture
Refugee and Protected Person Status Appeal and Judicial Review Under the Immigration Act 2009 / Hearing and Judgment on Appeal and Judicial Review (leave Granted; Judgment Delivered)
Outcome
Appeal and judicial review dismissed
Legal Topics
Credibility Assessment, Admissibility of Fresh Evidence, Statutory Scheme for Subsequent Claims, Inquisitorial V Adversarial Procedure
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Judicial Review Credibility Assessment Admissibility of Fresh Evidence Statutory Scheme for Subsequent Claims Inquisitorial V Adversarial Procedure

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

AR

Applicant/appellant

Immigration and Protection Tribunal

First Respondent

Refugee and Protection Officer

Second Respondent/respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee and Protected Person Status Appeal and Judicial Review Under the Immigration Act 2009 / Hearing and Judgment on Appeal and Judicial Review (leave Granted; Judgment Delivered)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Tribunal adopted an impermissible 'starting point of active disbelief' in assessing credibility
  2. 2 Proper legal approach to credibility assessments in refugee claims (benefit of the doubt, holistic assessment, core v peripheral facts)
  3. 3 Whether fresh/corroborative evidence should be admitted on appeal or judicial review given statutory scheme (s140 and related provisions)

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal did not err in law or fact: it lawfully conducted a holistic credibility assessment distinguishing core from peripheral inconsistencies, reasonably rejected the applicant's account on the cumulative weight of material inconsistencies and lack of veracity on core matters, and the court properly refused to receive additional evidence which was not fresh or cogent and which was subject to the statutory bar on successive claims; accordingly both the appeal and the judicial review were dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal and judicial review dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Judicial review dismissed