The High Court refused an application for leave to seek judicial review of the Refugee Appeals Tribunal’s rejection of K.R.’s asylum appeal, and declined to extend the time for bringing the challenge.
Mr Justice McDermott’s judgment, delivered on 2 December 2014, concerned a Tribunal decision dated 30 April 2009. The applicant was about one week outside the 14-day time limit. The judge said that, because no substantial grounds for leave had been shown, it was not in the interests of justice to extend the deadline. He said he would refuse leave on all grounds in any event. The application was refused.
K.R. claimed to have been born in Bhutan and to have spent much of his adult life in Nepal. He said his father, who was ethnically Nepalese, had been arrested by Bhutanese authorities and disappeared, and that the family home was burned. K.R. said he later worked in Nepal, including for Maoist rebels, and was arrested and beaten by police in Myagdi in 2003 before being released after 25 days. He claimed that, while living in Kathmandu, he feared arrest and forced return to Bhutan. These were his claims; the judgment records disputes about their credibility.
The Refugee Applications Commissioner had recommended that K.R. not be recognised as a refugee. The Tribunal accepted that he was stateless and assessed his claim with Nepal as his country of habitual residence. It rejected his appeal after an oral hearing, citing credibility concerns. These included his account of frequent police encounters in Kathmandu, which had not resulted in detention or attempted deportation, and his first-time disclosure at the hearing that Maoists had asked him to carry bombs. The Tribunal also considered his account of police custody and the timing of his asylum claim in Ireland.
The High Court said its role was to review how the Tribunal reached its decision, not to decide the asylum claim afresh. It found no basis to conclude that the Tribunal’s credibility findings were unreasonable or irrational. The judge said the Tribunal could take account of discrepancies between earlier accounts and oral evidence, and did not have to refer to every item of evidence if its reasons explained the substance of its assessment.
The ruling did not determine K.R.’s refugee claim anew. It refused leave to bring judicial review and refused the requested extension of time.