The High Court has quashed a tribunal recommendation refusing a Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) national consent to make a subsequent international protection application. The court found that the assessment of evidence about the risks faced by returned failed asylum seekers was irrational, but did not decide whether the applicant would ultimately qualify for protection.
The applicant, identified in the judgment as BL, first sought asylum in Ireland in 2015. His protection claims were refused, and a deportation order was made in June 2018 but had not been enforced. In May 2019, he applied under section 22 of the International Protection Act 2015 to be readmitted to the protection process, arguing that he risked harm, including imprisonment, if returned to the DRC as a failed asylum seeker, and that conditions there had significantly deteriorated.
An International Protection Officer recommended refusing consent, and the International Protection Appeals Tribunal affirmed that recommendation. The applicant brought judicial review proceedings. His challenges included the tribunal’s treatment of country information and its conclusion that there was no evidence showing how he would be returned or whether DRC authorities would identify him as a failed asylum seeker.
The court said the section 22 question was whether new material made it significantly more likely that the person would qualify for protection—not whether the new claim would ultimately succeed. It found that the tribunal had discounted a 2019 Guardian report without adequately explaining why, including where it relied on material linked to the author of a report it had criticised. The tribunal also relied on a 2012 UK fact-finding report without explaining how it answered concerns raised in the later article.
The court also found that the tribunal had unfairly said the applicant had provided no evidence about the Irish return process. His solicitor had requested information about the proposed return documentation, but the tribunal made no enquiry and assumed he would receive a laissez-passer document.
The court held that the Guardian report alone contained information capable of meeting the section 22 threshold. It emphasised that this did not mean the applicant’s protection claim would succeed when examined. It also criticised the tribunal’s failure to address other country information that had been considered in a separate, successful section 22 case involving a similar argument.
The High Court granted the relief sought, quashing the tribunal’s recommendation. It also ordered the respondents to pay the applicant’s costs, to be adjudicated in default of agreement.