The High Court quashed a recommendation that a Pakistani applicant not be declared a refugee, finding that the Refugee Applications Commissioner had not properly considered his explanation for delaying his asylum application. The court also held that a finding which would restrict his appeal to written submissions was unreasonable and disproportionate in the circumstances.
The judgment, delivered by Mr Justice Barr on 26 November 2014, followed judicial review proceedings challenging the Office of the Refugee Applications Commissioner’s (ORAC) recommendation of 13 July 2011. The court extended the time for bringing the proceedings to 2 September 2011, accepting that the applicant had acted promptly and that the delay arose during the vacation period. The respondents did not oppose the extension.
The applicant, who arrived in Ireland in 2005 on a student visa, applied for asylum on 7 April 2011, shortly after his permission to remain expired. He said he feared persecution in Pakistan after converting from Sunni to Shia Islam. He alleged that, on a return visit in 2009, family members took his passport, beat and confined him, and that religious extremists threatened to kill him. These were his claims, not findings by the High Court.
ORAC rejected his account as not credible, including because it considered his delay in seeking asylum undermined his claim. It also found that section 13(6)(c) of the Refugee Act applied: the applicant had, without reasonable cause, failed to apply as soon as reasonably practicable after arriving in Ireland. That finding meant any appeal to the Refugee Appeals Tribunal would be decided without an oral hearing.
The High Court said the main reasons for ORAC’s adverse credibility assessment turned on the applicant’s credibility. Given that, and the consequences of losing an oral appeal, the court found it disproportionate and unreasonable to make the section 13(6)(c) finding. It also concluded ORAC had not properly analysed the explanation given in the interview: that he hoped to reconcile with his family, was undecided about seeking asylum, and acted after a friend told him in March 2011 that the family and extremists were still looking for him.
The court did not rely on additional details the applicant later gave in an affidavit, because they were not before ORAC when it made its decision. It ordered certiorari quashing ORAC’s 13 July 2011 recommendation. The judgment quashed that recommendation; it did not decide that the applicant qualified for refugee status.