The High Court has dismissed a Nepalese man’s judicial review challenge to the rejection of his subsidiary protection appeal, finding no legal error in the appeals tribunal’s assessment of his credibility or explanations.
In a judgment delivered on 2 April 2019, Mr Justice Richard Humphreys said the International Protection Appeals Tribunal had considered the relevant material, put the inconsistencies to the applicant and assessed his answers. The court rejected both grounds pursued in the case. Two other grounds were not pursued by the applicant.
The applicant had claimed he suffered serious harm in Nepal, first from Maoist militants and later from police. The judgment records differing accounts of when he left Nepal and of his journey to Ireland. The applicant’s initial protection form referred to travel through New Delhi, Dubai and France. At the judicial review hearing, his counsel conveyed a different account, including that the applicant had been in the UK on a student visa before travelling to Ireland in June 2010.
The judgment recounts that the applicant claimed asylum in Ireland in June 2010. After Irish authorities learned he had been issued a UK visa, a transfer order was signed in August 2010, but he did not present for the arranged transfer. His asylum application was later deemed withdrawn after he failed to attend an interview, and a deportation order was made in December 2013. He applied for subsidiary protection in October 2016; the deportation order was revoked in May 2017.
The International Protection Office rejected the subsidiary protection claim in December 2017. The applicant appealed, but the tribunal rejected the appeal in August 2018 after an oral hearing. He sought judicial review, and leave to bring the proceedings was granted with a modest extension of time. The respondents did not object to that extension.
On the first ground, the applicant argued that the tribunal had rejected his claim because he had previously told untruths. The judge said the tribunal had considered multiple inconsistencies and other difficulties in the evidence, and that it was entitled to assess the applicant’s credibility in light of them. He also noted that untrue statements alone were not a reason to refuse protection, but concluded that the tribunal had assessed all the circumstances.
On the second ground, the applicant argued that the tribunal had summarily dismissed his explanations. The judge found that the explanations had been considered, even though they were not accepted. He said the applicant had an opportunity to address the identified issues, and that assessing the weight of the evidence was principally for the tribunal. A separate complaint about inadequate reasons was not pleaded and, in any event, the judge found no merit in it.
The court dismissed the proceedings. It did not reconsider the protection claim or make a new protection decision.