Judge rebukes refugee appeals board chairman over ‘cut and paste’ decisions

Malta's refugee appeals board came in for a stern rebuke by the court of Magistrate Raymond Pace, for its "cut and paste" decisions when informing appellants that their asylum claims have been turned down.

The refugee appeals board, chaired by lawyer and one-time PN political candidate Ian Spiteri Bailey, was ordered to revoke a decision that refused the appeal of an Eritrean asylum seeker in 2009 and hear his case again.

The appeals board's common practice of producing short, standard and identical decisions for all appellants also came in for some serious criticism by Magistrate Pace.

Pace said the refugee appeals board had denied Teshome Berhanu Asbu a fair hearing, when it failed to provide him and his lawyers with the full documentation of his asylum claim by the Refugee Commission.

Pace noted that the decisions of the appeals boards, which are reproduced in a terse, standard reply for all appellants, came without any explanatory motivation when it was clear that all decisions the appeals board takes were based on the evaluation of the documentation and evidence submitted by the appellant.

In his claim, the Eritrean asylum seeker said he had provided the appeals board with a set of documents that proved his Eritrean nationality, to appeal the Refugee Commission's decision to turn down his claim for asylum. In July 2009, the appeals board turned down the appeal on the basis that he had not provided convincing evidence that he faced a well-founded fear of persecution.

Asbu submitted that the appeals board's decisions lacked a motivation for its decision, or reasons why the evidence proving his nationality - which was one of the reasons his asylum claim was initially turned down - was not substantial for the appeal decision.

In his judgement, Pace said it was clear that Asbu could not have access to the evaluation report drawn up by the Commissioner for Refugees on his asylum claim, which was otherwise only available to the appeals board's chairman.

"The board and its chairman knew that this document was not available to the appellant and his lawyer," Magistrate Pace said. "There is no doubt that this practice is completely illegal and committed in breach of what constitutes a fair hearing."

Pace also said that the standard reply given by the appeals board, which is usually provided to all appellants whose claims are turned down, were bereft of any motivation that could explain why the appeals board was handing down its judgement.

"That this does not happen... is a manifest negation of justice, and it's a serious and grave matter in every case, but especially in a case where the humanitarian aspect and the human being's dignity deserves the highest of recognition, especially in a country like Malta where the rule of law prevails.

"This is the minimum one should expect... a decision that is motivated and studied, a clear-cut motivation that shows whether an appeal is being accepted or not, and this requires a judicious treatment of the claim, not a simple 'cut and paste' attitude."