The High Court has refused an asylum applicant’s request to quash a Refugee Appeals Tribunal decision, ruling that the Tribunal had jurisdiction to hear her appeal without a presenting officer for the Refugee Applications Commissioner.
The applicant, anonymised in the judgment as F.K.S., is a Cameroonian national who arrived in Ireland in 2004 and claimed asylum on the basis of a fear of persecution as a member of a particular social group. The Commissioner made a negative recommendation under the Refugee Act 1996. The Tribunal rejected her appeal after a hearing on 25 February 2008 and affirmed that recommendation in a decision dated 12 November 2008.
The applicant obtained leave in October 2009 to seek judicial review on one ground: that the Tribunal acted outside its powers by proceeding when neither the Commissioner nor an authorised member of staff attended the hearing. The judgment says the Commissioner’s office had told the Tribunal shortly before the hearing that no presenting officer was available. The applicant’s counsel sought an adjournment, arguing that the officer’s presence was required under the appeal regulations. The Tribunal refused the request and continued.
The High Court rejected that legal argument. It interpreted the requirement that the Tribunal “enable” the Commissioner to attend as requiring an opportunity to participate, rather than making attendance compulsory for a valid hearing. It also held that Regulation 9’s reference to the Commissioner and the High Commissioner “if present” applied to both.
The court said the Commissioner was entitled to representation and participation, and could not be excluded. But if the Commissioner had been notified of the hearing, the officer’s absence did not remove the Tribunal’s jurisdiction where the Commissioner chose not to be represented, or could not provide a representative and did not seek an adjournment.
The judgment noted that the Tribunal member had indicated an adjournment might be appropriate if internal relocation became an issue requiring the presenting officer’s involvement. The applicant’s counsel continued with the hearing, and the Tribunal ultimately made no finding on internal relocation. The High Court said the contested decision did not depend on that issue.
The Tribunal’s decision had found the applicant’s evidence not credible after analysing her account of events in Cameroon. The High Court did not quash that decision: it refused the order of certiorari sought on the sole permitted ground.