The High Court has dismissed R.B.’s application for judicial review of a refusal of subsidiary protection, bringing the proceedings to an end without setting aside that decision.
R.B., identified in the judgment as being from Bangladesh, sought asylum in Ireland in November 2010. His application was refused, and an appeal to the Refugee Appeals Tribunal was unsuccessful in April 2011. He later applied for leave to remain and subsidiary protection. The subsidiary protection application was refused in May 2012, and a deportation order followed.
The judicial review proceedings began in June 2012. The court described a series of procedural failures, including a five-year delay in issuing a substantive motion after partial leave had been granted. In October 2017, the High Court granted leave on specified remaining grounds and reliefs. The judge held that, in the circumstances, the applicant could seek that further leave in the same proceedings and that the effective extension of time to issue the motion did not prejudice the respondents.
The primary relief pursued at the hearing was an order quashing the subsidiary protection refusal. The applicant argued, among other points, that the decision failed to consider all relevant facts and did not adequately assess the risks he said he would face if removed. The judgment records claims concerning risk as a Buddhist or Buddhist monk, the death penalty and indiscriminate violence. The judge described aspects of the claims as general or unclear.
The court found that the decision stated all submissions had been considered and that, despite concerns about credibility, the relevant matters under the 2006 protection regulations would be examined. It also found the Minister could adopt reasoned tribunal findings, and that the risks raised were addressed adequately. The judge said no significant new evidence had been introduced that made the conclusions irrational or unlawful. The claim that risk as a failed asylum seeker had not been considered had not been put to the Minister.
The court dismissed the application. The order did not quash the subsidiary protection refusal. The judgment does not decide the applicant’s later citizenship or permanent-residence applications; it notes those applications and leaves their consideration to the Minister.