The High Court refused leave to challenge Refugee Appeals Tribunal decisions rejecting the refugee claims of four applicants from Mauritius, including two children. Ms Justice Stewart held that the Tribunal had engaged sufficiently with the claims and evidence before it, and found no flaw in its decision-making process.
The judicial review application sought certiorari to quash the Tribunal’s decisions affirming negative recommendations by the Refugee Applications Commissioner, and to have the cases reconsidered by a different Tribunal member. The judgment was delivered on 12 January 2016.
The first applicant said she feared returning to Mauritius because of family difficulties involving her father and stepmother, disapproval of her relationship with a Muslim partner, and limited prospects for work, housing and support. The second applicant said he feared discrimination in employment because he is Muslim. He also told interviewers that he wanted to regularise his position in Ireland. The Commissioner rejected the claims, and the Tribunal dismissed the appeals on paper in decisions dated 17 September 2012.
The applicants argued that the Tribunal had not properly considered claims included in the notice of appeal, including that the first applicant’s partner and daughters could face harm from family members. They also challenged the assessment of discrimination and alleged persecution, and said the paper appeals required particular care.
The court rejected the argument that statements in a notice of appeal automatically amounted to new evidence. It said an applicant could restate a case at appeal, but assertions made after a report had identified weaknesses did not, by themselves, constitute evidence. The Tribunal had recounted the claims and found them unsupported by the country information and the first applicant’s questionnaire or interview. The judge was satisfied it had engaged sufficiently with those assertions.
The judge also found that the second applicant’s interview statement about wanting to regularise his status was not decisive. The Tribunal had considered his claim about employment discrimination and the information before it. Whether the challenges the applicants might face in Mauritius amounted to persecution under the Refugee Convention was for the Tribunal to assess, the court said, absent a flaw in its process.
Having read the decisions as a whole, the judge found the Tribunal had considered the material and each applicant’s case in accordance with the applicable assessment requirements. She refused leave to proceed with the judicial review challenge. The court did not itself determine the applicants’ refugee claims.