The High Court dismissed A.G.’s application for leave to bring a judicial review over a Refugee Appeals Tribunal decision recommending refusal of refugee status. Mr Justice McDermott ruled on 25 April 2013 that the application should be dismissed because A.G. had shown a complete lack of candour and good faith during the proceedings.
The Tribunal had affirmed the Refugee Applications Commissioner’s negative recommendation in November 2008, following an oral hearing. It treated A.G. as stateless and assessed his claim on the basis that Nepal was his country of habitual residence. A.G. argued that Bhutan was the relevant country for assessing his fear of persecution. The High Court did not decide that legal challenge on its merits.
A.G. had told Irish authorities that he was born in Bhutan, left in 1991, lived in Nepal until May 2006 and had never sought asylum elsewhere. He claimed that ethnic Nepalese in Bhutan, including his family, faced persecution, and that Maoists later threatened him in Nepal. The Tribunal accepted that he had left Bhutan as a child with his uncle’s family and spent time in a refugee camp, but concluded that his treatment in Nepal did not amount to persecution.
During the judicial review proceedings, information obtained from UK authorities matched A.G.’s fingerprints to an asylum applicant who had applied in the UK in December 2002 and whose claim and appeal were refused. In a February 2013 affidavit, A.G. admitted that he had applied for asylum in the UK, travelled there in 2002 and remained there until coming to Ireland in 2006. He also admitted that parts of the account he had given in Ireland about his time in Nepal were false.
The judge found that the false account covered a substantial period and had materially affected the Commissioner’s and Tribunal’s consideration of the case. The applicant’s credibility and his account of his country of origin and habitual residence were central to the issues before those bodies. The court also found that the Tribunal had been prejudiced because it had not been told about the earlier UK asylum application.
The court held that an applicant seeking judicial review must disclose all material facts in good faith, including through the full hearing. It exercised its discretion to dismiss the application for leave on that basis. The court did not grant judicial review or determine whether the Tribunal had used the correct legal basis for assessing the refugee claim.