The High Court has refused an applicant leave to seek judicial review of an International Protection Appeals Tribunal decision rejecting his claims for refugee and subsidiary protection, finding he had not met the required substantial grounds threshold.
In a judgment delivered on 15 January 2024, Ms Justice Hyland said the threshold required an application to be reasonable, arguable and weighty, rather than trivial or tenuous. The application for leave was heard on 18 December 2023.
The applicant, identified in the judgment as VK, is from Zimbabwe. He left in 2008 and lived in South Africa until coming to Ireland in March 2022. He applied for international protection on 28 March 2022. The International Protection Office refused refugee status, subsidiary protection and permission to remain in January 2023. The tribunal later decided he should receive neither a refugee declaration nor a subsidiary protection declaration.
The judicial review application focused on the tribunal’s treatment of evidence about an account on Twitter, referred to in the judgment by the pseudonym “S1S”. The applicant said the account was his and that posts criticising the Zimbabwean government and Zanu PF could put him at risk if returned. His solicitor submitted 89 images or screenshots to the tribunal on 3 April 2023. The tribunal hearing took place on 17 May 2023 after an earlier online hearing was postponed because of technical difficulties.
The applicant argued that the tribunal had failed to assess the screenshots and his evidence under oath, had not made clear findings about his connection to the account, and had overlooked his claim that his online political views put him at risk. He also challenged the tribunal’s reliance on information made public through his LinkedIn account, including his residences and employment, in assessing his credibility and fear of the Zimbabwean authorities.
The High Court found that the tribunal had proceeded on the basis that S1S was the applicant’s account, while noting there was no evidence that officials or Zanu PF members had seen or monitored the posts or could identify their author. The judge said the applicant had not pointed to evidence establishing that the Twitter pages that engaged with the posts belonged to the government or the party.
Justice Hyland also rejected the argument that screenshots of posts made while the applicant was in Ireland had not been considered. The tribunal’s decision referred to screenshots submitted on 3 April 2023, which the judge said were the only screenshots submitted and included posts made in Ireland. She found the decision had engaged with that material.
The court concluded that the applicant had not established substantial grounds for challenging the tribunal’s decision and refused leave to seek judicial review. The ruling was limited to the leave application; it did not determine a full judicial review.