The High Court has quashed a Refugee Appeals Tribunal decision that affirmed a recommendation not to recognise an Afghan applicant as a refugee, finding that the tribunal’s credibility assessment relied in part on an incorrect approach to his journey through other countries.
The applicant had sought judicial review of the tribunal’s 2009 decision. He said he feared the Afghan authorities because of an alleged planned suicide attack and his political connections, and feared Taliban-linked groups because he had abandoned the plan. Those were claims made in the asylum process; the court did not determine whether they were true.
The tribunal had found the applicant not credible, including because he had travelled through Greece and the UK without seeking asylum. It relied on a test suggesting that failing to seek asylum in countries passed through was inconsistent with fleeing persecution. The tribunal also cited concerns about his account of his time at a madrasa in Pakistan, his contact with his father and the circumstances of his father’s arrest.
Justice Iseult O’Malley held that the tribunal erred in law by approving that approach. She said the cited test was not the correct one in this jurisdiction and that the relevant statutory provision applied only where an applicant claimed Ireland was the first safe country reached. In other cases, a decision-maker could consider travel through other safe countries, but should assess the applicant’s explanation for not applying there.
The judge noted that the applicant had said Greek police told him to leave and gave him an exit paper, and that other Afghans had warned he would receive no food or support if he applied. The tribunal had assumed that police directed him to an asylum office, although the applicant denied this, and had not assessed his explanations. The judge said those accounts were consistent with reported practices and findings about Greece’s asylum system.
The applicant also said he avoided applying in the UK because he feared being returned to Greece. The court found the tribunal had not properly considered whether he had a reasonable explanation for applying in Ireland. Instead, it had made his failure to apply elsewhere a serious credibility concern without adequate regard to that explanation.
Although the tribunal had made other adverse credibility findings, the judge said they arose after the flawed assessment and the court could not conclude the same decision would have been reached without the errors. The High Court ordered certiorari quashing the tribunal decision and remitted the matter for reconsideration. It did not decide the applicant’s refugee claim or direct that he be granted refugee status.