The High Court has dismissed M.R.’s application for judicial review of the International Protection Appeals Tribunal’s rejection of his appeal, leaving that decision in place. Mr Justice Richard Humphreys delivered judgment on 29 January 2020.
M.R., who said he was born in Bangladesh in 1982, claimed he faced threats and violence arising from a land dispute with an uncle. He left Bangladesh for the UK in 2011, where he held student permission until 2014. After his renewal application was refused, he later came to Ireland on 15 May 2016 and applied for asylum the following day.
The International Protection Office rejected his application in November 2018. The tribunal dismissed his appeal on 25 April 2019, finding that core parts of his account were not credible. M.R. then sought judicial review, asking the High Court to quash the tribunal’s decision. The court had granted leave to bring the case and later allowed an amendment to the grounds; those were procedural steps, not a decision in his favour on the substance.
The challenge raised eight grounds, including arguments that the tribunal applied the wrong test for the benefit of the doubt, failed to consider a village chairman’s document and medical material, and did not properly address country information about land disputes in Bangladesh. The court held that the tribunal’s decision showed it had considered the chairman’s document and that it was not required to discuss every item in a narrative manner. It also found that the tribunal was entitled to assess the documents in the context of M.R.’s credibility.
Three medical documents were discussed: an asylum health-screening record from May 2016, a February 2017 document from Delta Medical College and Hospital, and a GP report from Sligo. The judge described the February document as unreliable, noting the tribunal’s finding that M.R. had admitted telling his mother what to tell the doctor. The judge said the tribunal had seen M.R.’s scars and was entitled to conclude that the other medical material did not establish how or in what circumstances the injuries were caused.
The court also rejected the arguments about the benefit of the doubt and country information. It said the tribunal had found M.R.’s general credibility was not established, and that consistency between an account and country information did not itself substantiate the personal allegations. The court did not rehear the protection claim or make a new determination of it; it considered whether the tribunal’s decision was unlawful on the grounds raised.
The application was dismissed. The tribunal’s rejection of the appeal therefore remained in place.