The High Court has granted M.B. leave to pursue a limited judicial review challenge to the Refugee Appeals Tribunal’s 2008 refusal of her refugee claim, finding there was an arguable issue about how the tribunal assessed whether she had raised her central claim during an earlier interview. The court also extended the time for bringing the proceedings.
The ruling, delivered by Mr Justice Colm Mac Eochaidh on 9 April 2013, concerned an application for leave to seek judicial review. The applicant sought to quash the tribunal’s decision affirming the Refugee Applications Commissioner’s recommendation to refuse refugee status and to have the matter reconsidered.
M.B., a national of the Democratic Republic of Congo, said her asylum claim arose from witnessing soldiers kidnap her father, whom she described as a political activist. She also described being raped in 2000 and witnessing the deaths of her aunt and uncle. These were claims advanced by the applicant, not findings made by the court.
The tribunal had rejected her account on credibility grounds. In particular, it considered that she had not mentioned problems involving her father during a section 8 interview. The High Court said the record of that interview consisted of questions and answers but showed that she had not been asked to set out the basis of her asylum claim. The judge found there was a substantial argument that the tribunal had misunderstood or inadequately considered when she had referred to her central claim. He granted leave on that issue, while noting that a full hearing could still show the tribunal had taken a lawful approach to credibility.
The court refused leave on the applicant’s complaints about medical reports and an alleged refusal to adjourn the asylum appeal. The judge noted that the report sought from Dr Farooq had not been produced, despite the time available, and that the applicant had not shown what difference it might have made. He also found no demonstrated prejudice from the late report by Dr Cullivan. The judge did not consider the tribunal’s refusal to allow cross-examination of the presenting officer significant to the interview issue.
Leave was also refused on the challenge concerning the applicant’s account of rape and violence in 2000. The judge said those events were not advanced as the cause of her departure and were not said to be connected to the events she relied on in 2006.
The judge accepted that good and sufficient reason had been shown for the delay in bringing proceedings, citing the change of legal representation, transfer of files, the applicant’s illness and papers being mistakenly left at a solicitor’s office. The judgment grants permission to bring a challenge on specified credibility grounds; it does not quash the tribunal decision or determine the asylum claim.