The High Court has refused two applicants’ requests to challenge decisions that prevented their Irish asylum claims from being processed, and declined to extend the time for bringing the judicial review proceedings.
The judgment, delivered by Mr Justice McDermott on 17 April 2013, concerned separate cases heard together. J.G., an Angolan national, and W.M., a national of the Democratic Republic of Congo, had both been granted refugee status in the Czech Republic before arriving in Ireland in February 2007. They said they feared persecution there, including racial discrimination and assaults, and complained chiefly about their accommodation and treatment by Czech officials.
In June 2007, the Refugee Applications Commissioner refused to admit either application for processing under section 17(4) of the Refugee Act 1996. Neither applicant was interviewed under section 11. Both sought judicial review of that decision and of subsequent deportation orders, arguing that the Commissioner should have investigated their claims before refusing to process them.
The court examined the applicants’ accounts of accommodation disputes, alleged threats and assaults, and their dealings with Czech authorities. It found that the material before it did not establish a reasonable possibility that the applicants faced persecution in the Czech Republic on grounds of race or colour. The judge noted that they had received refugee status, accommodation, financial support and other assistance there. He also found no evidence that they had sought legal redress in the Czech Republic for the alleged wrongs, or a reasonable explanation for not doing so.
The judge concluded that the applicants had not established a stateable ground to challenge the section 17(4) decisions. He also found they had not established substantial grounds to challenge the deportation orders, which they argued depended on the earlier decisions being unlawful.
The timing of the applications differed. J.G. had waited about 20 months after the June 2007 decision to begin proceedings and did not adequately explain the delay. W.M. applied promptly after receiving notice of his deportation order, but gave no reason for the delay in challenging the 2007 decision. The court found that neither case justified extending time.
The court refused the relief sought in both proceedings. It also said that, even if leave for judicial review had been granted, the applicants would not have established that the respondents’ decisions were unlawful.