The High Court has refused leave for a Lebanese family to seek judicial review of a decision rejecting their asylum appeals, finding they had not established substantial grounds to have the decision quashed. The court extended time for the application, which had been brought outside the statutory 14-day period.
The family’s case, as described in the judgment, was that the father accidentally struck and paralysed a pedestrian in Beirut in January 2004. He said he was later told the pedestrian’s relatives were connected to Hezbollah and intended to harm him. The family said it went into hiding for about 12 months at a friend’s home in Jounieh before travelling to Ireland in January 2005 and seeking asylum. These were their claims, not findings that the events occurred.
The Refugee Appeals Tribunal rejected the family’s appeals in September 2006. The Tribunal Member accepted that the father had “a certain fear” of a revenge killing and made no negative credibility findings. The member nevertheless gave weight to the family’s failure to seek police protection and its time in Jounieh without harm, concluding their fear was not well-founded. The member also considered the explanation for destroying travel documents illogical.
In the judicial review leave application, the family argued that the Tribunal Member had failed to assess their explanation that police were controlled by Hezbollah, their evidence that they had lived in hiding and fear in Jounieh, and their explanation for destroying passports. They also relied on medical reports describing the father as having symptoms of anxiety, depression and post-traumatic stress disorder.
Justice Hedigan rejected the arguments. He found that, read as a whole, the Tribunal decision showed the member understood the family’s concern that the police would not protect them. The court considered it open to the member to conclude there was no country information showing police protection would not reasonably have been available if sought. It also found that the evidence about the family’s restricted activities in Jounieh had been recorded and that the conclusion reached was not irrational or unreasonable.
The judge said the Tribunal Member had regard to the passport explanation and the father’s mental health evidence. He also noted that the document provisions had no bearing on the ultimate decision because the parties agreed that no negative credibility findings had been made.
The court was satisfied there was good and sufficient reason to extend time, citing difficulties obtaining legal representation and language difficulties. But it was not satisfied that substantial grounds had been established and refused leave. The ruling decided only whether the family could proceed with judicial review; it did not quash the Tribunal’s asylum decision.