The High Court was concerned with whether the decision of the Standing Committee for Refugee Affairs to withdraw the applicants’ refugee status was unlawful and unconstitutional and whether the High Court should substitute the decision and declare that the applicants qualify for refugee status and direct the respondents to issue them with documentation recognising their refugee status.
The grounds of review were as follows: there were no country-specific submissions considered by the Standing Committee for Refugee Affairs; the factors considered were irrelevant and not based in law; the decision was procedurally unfair for failure to gather relevant information and applying the wrong burden of proof; and no rational connection between the information provided and the decision to withdraw status.
The applicants sought condonation for the late application to review the decision to withdraw their refugee status. The applicants argued that their legal representative had difficulty obtaining relevant documents and information from the previous attorneys of record.
Regarding the decision to withdraw refugee status, the applicants were granted an opportunity to make submissions to the Standing Committee for Refugee Affairs. The respondents argued that the submissions contained misleading evidence relating to the Democratic Republic of Congo as opposed to Congo-Brazzaville, which was their country of origin.
Refugee status; political refugee; termination of refugee status; decision to withdraw refugee status; Standing Committee for Refugee Affairs; review; judicial review; review
The applicants sought an order to review and set aside the decision of the Standing Committee for Refugee Affairs to withdraw refugee status and condonation for the late filing of the application.
The respondents argued that the decision was not reviewable because the applicants were allowed to make submissions; however, the submissions they made were incorrect, false or irrelevant. Furthermore, the submissions the applicants wanted to make ex post facto were not part of their submissions before the Standing Committee for Refugee Affairs.
On condonation, it was decided that the High Court had to be informed of the nature of the difficulties experienced and the steps taken to overcome them. This was not done by the applicants.
The decision to withdraw the applicants' refugee status was not reviewable because the Court was confined to the record of decision-making, which showed that the applicants were allowed to make submissions. It was not to review the facts the Standing Committee for Refugee Affairs did or did not consider in the submissions made to it. The grounds for review were not sustainable. The application was dismissed.
Condonation for the late filing of an application to the High Court required details of the nature of the delay and steps taken to overcome the delay. The High Court was confined to the record of decision-making and not called upon to review the facts considered by the Standing Committee for Refugee Affairs.