The High Court has rejected Y. L.’s judicial review challenge to a Refugee Appeals Tribunal decision that upheld a recommendation not to recognise him as a refugee.
In a judgment delivered on 7 October 2009, Ms Justice M. H. Clark found that the tribunal’s reasons for rejecting his appeal were clear, despite being expressed “with economy of words”. She also held that his separate claim that he could face persecution in China because he had applied for asylum in Ireland was not supported by sufficient evidence to set aside the decision.
Y. L., a Chinese citizen, came to Ireland in January 2001 on a six-month student visa. He applied for asylum in November 2005, after being served with a deportation order. He claimed that Chinese authorities had detained and tortured him because of his Falun Gong practice, and that he feared imprisonment and brainwashing if returned.
The Refugee Appeals Tribunal rejected his appeal in June 2007. It relied on his late asylum application and his account that he had not practised Falun Gong for several years in Ireland. The tribunal also noted inconsistencies, including different dates for when he began practising. The High Court found that the tribunal’s stated reasons showed why it had rejected his personal credibility and were reasonable on the evidence before it.
At his appeal hearing, Y. L. also said he feared persecution on return because he had applied for asylum abroad. The High Court accepted that some failed asylum seekers may face such a risk, but said objective evidence and a connection to a Convention reason must be established. The tribunal had not considered this element of his claim, but the court found the challenge still failed: the supporting material relied on in the judicial review was a BBC article describing restrictions on Falun Gong activities in China, which the court said did not establish that failed asylum seekers were targeted.
The court said that if compelling objective evidence had been presented to the tribunal, it would have had to consider the argument. It also noted that, if deportation were proposed, Y. L. could make representations and any new evidence would have to be considered in assessing whether removal would breach the prohibition on refoulement. The court dismissed the judicial review application; it did not grant an order quashing the tribunal decision.