The High Court has dismissed an Iraqi man’s application for judicial review of a decision refusing him refugee status, ruling that he had not shown grounds to quash the Refugee Appeals Tribunal’s decision.
Mr Justice McDermott also refused to extend the time for bringing the application and refused leave to apply for judicial review on all grounds. The court said its role was limited to reviewing the legality of the decision, not reconsidering its merits. It added that the dismissal did not prevent the man from applying for subsidiary protection or humanitarian leave to remain in Ireland.
The applicant, identified in the judgment as N.A.D., said he and his brother were shot at in Baghdad in July 2006. His brother later died. The applicant said they were attacked because they were Shia Muslims. The Tribunal did not accept that the shooting had been established as a sectarian attack, although the High Court said the applicant’s credibility was not in issue and that many facts he recounted had been accepted.
The family left their home in a predominantly Sunni area after sectarian unrest and a threatening letter. The applicant moved with relatives to Al Karada, a predominantly Shia district, where he lived and worked for about 14 months before leaving Iraq in September 2007. His application for asylum was refused by the Refugee Applications Commissioner and, after an oral hearing, the Tribunal affirmed that recommendation in February 2009.
The applicant argued that the Tribunal had not properly assessed whether it would be unduly harsh to expect him to return to Al Karada, given the violence and limited state protection. He also relied on his surviving brother’s later injury in a bomb explosion. The judge said it was open to the Tribunal to treat that incident as random and not part of a series of persecution against the applicant or his family.
The court found that the Tribunal had considered the move from the family home, the applicant’s time in Al Karada and the reasons he gave for leaving. It was entitled to conclude that his departure was for personal reasons about his future rather than fear of persecution on a Convention ground. The judge also upheld the Tribunal’s view that the applicant’s concern about having a Sunni name did not establish a particular risk: he had not reported difficulties over his name before leaving Iraq, and the claimed danger was speculative.
The judgment concerned the application for judicial review and did not grant or determine any separate application for subsidiary protection or humanitarian leave.