The High Court has refused to extend the time for a Bangladeshi asylum seeker to seek leave for judicial review of a negative refugee recommendation, and dismissed his application. The motion was brought 23 days outside the statutory 14-day limit, and the applicant had not filed an affidavit explaining the delay when the motion was made.
The case concerned a recommendation by the Refugee Applications Commissioner that the applicant should not be declared a refugee. The Commissioner concluded that he had applied for asylum without reasonable cause after failing to do so as soon as reasonably practicable after arriving in Ireland. The Refugee Appeals Tribunal was also named as a respondent.
The applicant’s judicial review challenge included an argument that he had been denied an oral appeal hearing because the recommendation involved an adverse credibility finding. The judge found that the Commissioner’s decision was based on factual grounds drawn from the recorded interview, rather than a finding that the applicant was personally unbelievable. The court therefore held that the constitutional fairness argument about an oral hearing did not arise as an arguable ground on these facts. It did not decide whether such an argument could succeed in other circumstances.
The applicant said the delay arose from the geographical distance between him and his solicitor’s office, translation of the court papers, and steps taken to obtain legal advice. The judge found, on the balance of probabilities, that the decision to seek judicial review was taken on 6 July 2009, after the 14-day period had expired. He was not satisfied that the applicant had formed an intention to challenge the recommendation within that period. The judge also found no affidavit evidence supporting claims about when papers were sent to counsel or when advice was received.
The judge held that the 23-day delay was significant in the context of the short statutory deadline and that no understandable or sufficient reason for extending time had been established. The court declined to extend the time and dismissed the application. It did not determine the underlying refugee claim or the appeal to the Refugee Appeals Tribunal.