The High Court has refused leave for a Zimbabwean applicant to challenge a Refugee Appeals Tribunal decision that affirmed the rejection of her asylum claim, while extending the time for her judicial review proceedings.
In a judgment delivered on 25 June 2015, Ms Justice Stewart said the applicant could not use the challenge to the tribunal’s decision to mount a late attack on an earlier finding by the Refugee Applications Commissioner (RAC). That finding had resulted in her appeal being considered on the papers, without an oral hearing.
The applicant, identified in the judgment as T.C. [Zimbabwe], was born in Mutare in 1992 and came to Ireland with her father and sister in March 2002 to visit her mother. She applied for asylum in August 2010, more than eight years after arriving. The RAC concluded that she had not established a well-founded fear of persecution and recommended that she not be declared a refugee. It also found that her claim showed “either no basis or a minimal basis” for refugee status, triggering a papers-only appeal.
The tribunal affirmed the RAC recommendation on 31 January 2011. The applicant sought judicial review, asking the court to quash that decision and return the appeal for fresh consideration by a different tribunal member.
The proceedings were issued outside the statutory 14-day period. Justice Stewart extended time, accepting the explanation offered by the applicant’s counsel and the statement in her affidavit. She noted that the applicant had not filed the further affidavit that had been anticipated to explain the delay, and said the extension did not remove the need to provide sufficient reasons on affidavit in such cases.
At the hearing, the applicant pursued only her first pleaded ground. She argued that a papers-only appeal did not provide an effective remedy where credibility issues arose. The respondents said the RAC’s earlier finding was not under challenge in these proceedings, had not been challenged at the time and was now out of time. They also argued that the tribunal’s decision did not turn on personal credibility, pointing to the delay in applying, differences between the applicant’s account and her mother’s, and the assessment of her claimed fears.
Justice Stewart said the absence of an oral appeal was not, by itself, fatal. She concluded that the applicant could not now challenge the earlier papers-only designation indirectly through a challenge to the tribunal decision. The court refused leave to seek judicial review; it did not quash the tribunal decision or order a fresh appeal.