The High Court has refused an Afghan applicant’s application for certiorari to quash a decision refusing consent to make a further asylum application under section 17(7) of the Refugee Act 1996.
The judgment, delivered by Ms Justice O’Regan on 23 February 2017, concerned a Minister for Justice and Equality decision dated 24 May 2016. The applicant had received leave to seek judicial review on two grounds: that the Minister had not explained why two redacted decisions concerning Afghan nationals did not make it significantly more likely that he would qualify for protection, and had failed to consider that he was from Nangarhar province.
The applicant arrived in Ireland on 31 October 2011 and applied for asylum in November that year. The judgment says he initially said he was from Nangarhar but did not mention the province thereafter. His later submissions to the Minister and the country-of-origin information he supplied did not address Nangarhar; the material focused mainly on Kabul. The court found the argument about the province lacked merit in those circumstances.
The applicant relied on two earlier ORAC decisions, including one recommending subsidiary protection for another Afghan national. He argued that the Minister had not adequately explained why those decisions did not support his further application. The Minister’s decision referred to the application, arguments and country-of-origin information, and concluded that no new elements or findings made it significantly more likely that the applicant would qualify for protection.
Justice O’Regan acknowledged that the decision did not specifically discuss why the two ORAC decisions fell short. However, she held that it gave the applicant the broad gist of the reasoning: the decisions did not, in the context of his own application and the material submitted, establish the required new elements or findings. Although the reasons were “certainly sparse”, the court found their basis clear and unambiguous and considered the decision rational. It also found no substantial prejudice from the lack of a more detailed discussion.
The parties disputed whether the information and submissions could have been provided with the applicant’s earlier application. The judge said it was unnecessary to decide that issue in light of her conclusions on the reasons given. The court refused the application for certiorari. It did not determine the applicant’s entitlement to asylum or subsidiary protection.