The High Court has dismissed a judicial review application challenging the Refugee Appeals Tribunal’s refusal of an asylum claim made for a child born in Ireland to a Pakistani father. The judgment was delivered by Mr Justice Noonan on 14 January 2015.
The child, identified as N.E., was five when the proceedings were heard. He brought the case through his father, M.E.A. The court was reviewing the legality of the Tribunal’s decision, not deciding the asylum claim afresh.
The father had claimed that he faced persecution in Pakistan, including a threat to his life and an attempted kidnapping of his daughter. He said the alleged persecution was connected to his refusal to join the Muslim League. The Refugee Applications Commissioner recommended refusing the child’s claim, citing credibility concerns, the availability of state protection and internal relocation, and the absence of a link to a protected ground under refugee law. The Refugee Appeals Tribunal affirmed that recommendation.
The child sought to quash the Tribunal’s decision, arguing in part that the appeal should have included an oral hearing. The High Court held that the Commissioner’s earlier decision had determined that there would be no oral hearing. That decision had not been challenged, and the complaint had not been raised in submissions to the Tribunal. The court ruled that the issue could not be raised in this judicial review.
The court also rejected complaints about the Tribunal’s reliance on findings concerning the father and its treatment of supporting documents. It said the father had several opportunities, with legal advice and an interpreter, to present the child’s case. It found that the Tribunal could conclude the father was fleeing prosecution rather than persecution, and that the documents did not establish persecution for a Convention reason.
The judgment noted an apparent error in the Tribunal’s account of what the father had said at interview, but held that it was not a core finding and did not undermine the decision when read as a whole. The court also rejected the challenge to the Tribunal’s internal relocation assessment. It observed that the Tribunal had separately found no failure of state protection, a finding that was not challenged.
The court dismissed the application. It did not grant the requested order quashing the Tribunal’s determination.