The High Court granted an Iranian applicant leave to seek judicial review of a decision refusing his refugee appeal, finding two grounds arguable: how the tribunal used information about an Armenian church to assess his credibility, and whether it considered the significance of his baptism.
The ruling, delivered by Ms Justice Dunne on 19 October 2007, does not quash the Refugee Appeals Tribunal’s decision or decide whether the applicant is entitled to refugee status. It permits him to pursue a judicial review challenge on the identified grounds.
The applicant’s claim was based on his conversion from Islam to Christianity and an alleged fear of persecution in Iran. He said his interest in Christianity developed through his relationship with an Armenian Christian woman and discussions with her father. He described incidents involving Iranian authorities, including a search of his room after his father reported his conversion, and said he fled Iran after going into hiding.
The tribunal had refused his appeal, concluding that his account was not credible. It cited, among other matters, limited identity documentation, his account of travel to Ireland, his failure to claim asylum at the point of entry, and aspects of his evidence it considered vague. It also relied on country information about the Armenian Gregorian Church, including restrictions on who could join it, when assessing his account of conversion.
The applicant challenged several parts of that assessment. The High Court rejected his arguments that the tribunal could not consider his demeanour at the hearing and that its credibility reasons were too vague. It also found no basis to interfere with the tribunal’s treatment of his identity documents or travel account, and rejected the claim that the tribunal had applied the wrong standard of proof.
On the church information, however, the judge said it was arguable that using material about the Armenian Gregorian Church to undermine credibility was an error in the circumstances, because conversion to Christianity was central to the claim. The judge also said it could be argued that the tribunal had not taken account of the applicant’s baptism and its significance. The judgment records that the applicant said he was baptised in Cork on 23 October 2005, and states that his baptism into the Christian community was not disputed.
Leave was granted on those two grounds. The court did not need to address the separate reasonableness challenge. The respondents had conceded that delay would not prevent the applicant from seeking leave.