The High Court has refused an application for judicial review by A.K., a child born in Ireland, challenging the rejection of his asylum claim. Mr Justice Barr held that the Refugee Appeals Tribunal had lawfully considered both his parents’ earlier asylum decisions and issues specific to the child’s application.
The judgment, delivered on 26 November 2014, concerned a claim based on the child’s parents’ account of threats and assaults by the father’s family in Georgia. The child’s father confirmed at interview that the application relied on the same reasons his and the child’s mother’s asylum claims had relied on. Those earlier claims had been rejected by the Refugee Applications Commissioner and the Tribunal.
The parents’ applications had been rejected after the Tribunal found serious contradictions in their accounts of passports, travel and visa applications. The High Court said those credibility findings affected the parents’ account as a whole, including their claim that they faced persecution from the father’s family. It agreed that the Tribunal could take those earlier decisions into account when assessing the child’s application.
The Tribunal also considered two issues specific to the child’s case: a four-month delay in applying for asylum after his birth, and the father’s claim that his brother was a police officer who would prevent the family from obtaining protection. The High Court accepted the Tribunal’s concerns about the explanations for the delay and the late appearance of the police allegation in the parents’ claims.
The applicant argued that the Tribunal had made new credibility findings without giving the family a fair chance to respond. The court rejected that argument. The delay had been raised with the father at interview, and he himself raised his brother’s alleged police role. The court held that the Tribunal was entitled to consider both matters.
On state protection, the Tribunal relied on country information describing Georgia as a democracy with a functioning police force and appropriate oversight. It doubted that the father’s brother was a police officer, but found that, even if he was, the Georgian state could provide protection. The High Court found that conclusion was open to the Tribunal and would not disturb it.
The court concluded that the Tribunal’s decision was lawful and sound in substance. It refused the application for judicial review; the judgment did not grant the relief sought.