The court held that the evidence did not show that the REC did not exercise its discretion. Nor did it show that the REC contracted its discretion to the UNHCR, Kenya. The document showed that on 19 February 2003 the REC discussed the applicant's application. Consequently, the court rejected the application for lack of grounds of persecution.
Refugee law; recognition of refugee status; human rights law; application for refugee status
The applicant sought orders to quash and declare a decision of the Refugee Eligibility Committee (REC) denying the applicant refugee status for lack of grounds and to leave the country within ninety days; a prohibition directed to the REC stopping them or its agents from deporting the applicant to Kenya or Ethiopia; a declaratory order that the applicant's application for refugee status/asylum was wrongly and illegally rejected; and an Injunction restraining the respondent and/or his agents from arresting, detaining and subsequently deporting the applicant before the determination of the main application.
On the other hand, the respondent stated that the REC rejected the applicant's asylum for good reason and considered all the circumstances surrounding the application for asylum; and that the Refugee Eligibility Committee at all times acted fairly while dealing with the applicant's application and appeal/review for grant of asylum.
The court held that the evidence did not state what grounds were used by the UNHCR, Kenya. The applicant's application was considered, evaluated, and a decision made on the merits of the application, whatever those merits were.
The court held that the evidence did not show that the REC did not exercise its discretion