The High Court quashed a Refugee Appeals Tribunal decision rejecting an anonymised man’s asylum claim and sent his case back for fresh consideration by a different Tribunal Member. The court found that the decision had not addressed key parts of his claim about the risks he might face in Bangladesh.
The judgment, [2013] IEHC 535, was delivered by Ms Justice M. H. Clark on 30 September 2013. The applicant sought certiorari to quash a Tribunal decision dated 9 June 2009. The court had indicated at a July 2013 hearing that it would quash the decision and gave its reasons in the judgment.
The applicant claimed to be a Rohingya Muslim from Burma who had lived in a UNHCR-administered refugee camp in Bangladesh. He said he left the camp in 2001, remained stateless, and later feared being returned to Burma. He also claimed that Bangladeshi authorities had harassed him because of his origins and that he was wrongly suspected in connection with an arms cache found near his home in 2008. Those were his claims, not findings by the High Court.
The Tribunal had accepted that the applicant was stateless and that Bangladesh was his former habitual residence. It gave him the benefit of the doubt on some credibility issues raised by the Refugee Applications Commissioner, including his language and travel evidence, but rejected his account of unfair prosecution over the arms cache as vague, inconsistent and not credible. The High Court found no basis to fault the Tribunal’s credibility findings on that account. It also rejected a complaint that the Tribunal had failed to consider supporting documents, while noting it could not comment on a District Court order that had not been exhibited.
The court’s concern was that the Tribunal had relied on country information indicating no refoulement of UNHCR-registered Rohingya refugees without considering whether the applicant still had that protection after leaving the camp. Nor had it considered his separate claim that he faced persecution in Bangladesh because of his Rohingya ethnicity and undocumented status. The court said country information referred to reported abuse and restrictions affecting Rohingya refugees, including people living outside camps.
The High Court did not decide whether the applicant qualified for asylum or would face persecution. It set aside the Tribunal decision, directed a fresh assessment by a different member, and said the applicant must have an opportunity to submit updated information in light of changes in Myanmar since the 2009 decision. He was awarded his costs.