The High Court has allowed an anonymised Iranian-Kurdish applicant to seek judicial review of a recommendation refusing him refugee status, after extending the deadline for his application. The court did not decide whether the recommendation was invalid; it found substantial grounds to bring the challenge.
Mr Justice Herbert delivered the judgment on 8 May 2008. The applicant was notified of the Refugee Applications Commissioner’s recommendation in June 2006. He filed his application for leave to seek judicial review on 20 December 2006, more than six months beyond the usual 14-day period.
The applicant said he had not been advised that judicial review was an option and understood that he could appeal to the Refugee Appeals Tribunal. He also described psychological distress and difficulty engaging with legal and other services. A medical report sent to the tribunal in August 2006 said he was psychologically distressed and raised concerns about his mental and physical health. The respondents did not oppose an extension if the court was minded to grant one.
The judge found good and sufficient reason to extend time, concluding that the applicant’s inability to progress an application was, on the evidence, essentially beyond his control and related to psychological distress, stress and depression due to illness.
On the leave application, the court found substantial grounds to contend that the Commissioner’s authorised officer had not fairly addressed whether Ireland was the first safe country the applicant reached after leaving Iran. The applicant said he had been hidden in a lorry after leaving Turkey and did not choose Ireland as his destination. The judge found grounds to argue that the issue of seeking asylum in Turkey or other countries was not put to him, and that the officer’s conclusion on the safe-country issue was therefore based on unfair procedures.
The court also found substantial grounds to argue that the officer had not adequately taken account of the applicant’s mental condition when assessing his evidence, despite medical reports available at the time. It further found grounds to contend that relevant information about the applicant’s claimed links to the Komala Party and other material had not been properly considered.
The applicant had lodged an appeal to the Refugee Appeals Tribunal, but its oral hearing had not taken place. The judge ruled that the pending appeal did not bar judicial review and that the applicant could retain the option of pursuing it if the court challenge failed.
The order grants leave to seek judicial review on the stated grounds. It is not a ruling quashing the recommendation or granting refugee status.