The High Court refused leave to challenge a Refugee Appeals Tribunal decision that upheld the rejection of an asylum claim. Ms Justice Stewart found no basis to quash the tribunal’s decision or send the appeal back for a fresh hearing.
The judicial review concerned a tribunal decision dated 10 May 2011. The applicant sought an order quashing it and a new consideration by a different tribunal member. The proceedings were filed four days outside the statutory time limit. The respondents did not object to an extension, which the court granted.
The applicant, identified in the judgment as G.G.N., was born in Niger and moved to Nigeria as a child. He said he had been involved with the Niger Delta Youth Movement, had taken part in protests and had been arrested and tortured. He also described being forced to drink a potion by soldiers and escaping after a man gave him herbs. These were claims before the asylum authorities, not findings made by the High Court.
The Refugee Applications Commissioner found that the applicant had not applied for asylum as soon as reasonably practicable after arriving in Ireland. That finding meant his appeal to the tribunal proceeded on the papers, without an oral hearing. The applicant did not challenge that decision in these proceedings, and the High Court said it could not interfere with it.
The tribunal rejected the appeal, citing doubts about the applicant’s knowledge of the political group and oil companies in Bayelsa State, his account of his arrest and escape, and his travel using another person’s passport. In the judicial review, the applicant argued that the papers-only assessment required particular care, that parts of the credibility analysis were mistaken, and that the tribunal had not clearly addressed the core of his political-activism claim. The respondents said the tribunal had properly assessed the material before it.
The judge held that delayed asylum applications are not, by themselves, a bar to refugee status, but may be considered when assessing credibility. She also found the tribunal was entitled to question the applicant’s account of his political-group knowledge and that it had given due consideration to his evidence about the alleged poisoning and escape.
Reading the tribunal decision as a whole, the judge concluded it complied with the applicable credibility assessment principles and that the tribunal had exercised the care required for a papers-only appeal. She refused leave to seek judicial review. The judgment did not grant the requested quashing order or direct a fresh tribunal hearing.