The Court of Appeal has dismissed appeals by two anonymised appellants against the revocation of their refugee status, upholding the High Court’s decision that the Minister had grounds to revoke it.
The judgment, delivered by Mr Justice Hedigan on 2 October 2018, concerned decisions made under section 21(1)(h) of the Refugee Act 1996. The Minister revoked the declarations after concluding that information furnished during the asylum process was false or misleading in a material particular. The High Court dismissed the appellants’ statutory appeals in January 2017.
The appellants arrived in Ireland in December 2005, aged 16, and applied for asylum as unaccompanied minors. They initially described themselves as brothers and later as cousins. They claimed to be Somali nationals from the Bajuni islands and said an agent arranged their journey to Ireland. Their asylum applications were initially refused by the Refugee Applications Commissioner on credibility grounds, but the Refugee Appeals Tribunal granted refugee status, giving them the benefit of the doubt about their origin.
The Irish authorities later received UK records indicating that both had applied for UK visit visas in 2005 using Tanzanian passports. The records said the first applications were refused and later applications were granted. The appellants attended interviews at the British High Commission in Dar es Salaam; their fingerprints were taken during a trial process. The visas were not used to enter the UK.
In response to the proposed revocations, the appellants’ solicitors argued that an agent had arranged the passports and visas, which could have been forged, and that the documents did not establish Tanzanian nationality. They also relied on Somali birth certificates and the appellants’ ability to speak Bajuni. The Minister’s stated grounds included failure to disclose the UK visas and the conclusion that the appellants were Tanzanian rather than Somali nationals.
On appeal, the appellants disputed the reliability and significance of the UK material, challenged the burden of proof, and argued that evidence had been obtained unlawfully or unfairly. The Court of Appeal said the burden rested on the appellants to show that the Minister’s decision was flawed. It also held that the legality challenge had not been raised in the High Court pleadings and could not be considered on appeal.
The court treated the central issue as whether material false or misleading information had been given during the asylum applications and whether the newly discovered information would have affected the grant of refugee status. It found no error in the High Court’s assessment that it would have. The court affirmed the High Court judgment and dismissed the appeals. It did not itself determine the appellants’ nationality or decide whether they were refugees; it reviewed the Minister’s revocation decisions through the statutory appeal.