The High Court has quashed a decision affirming the refusal of permission to remain in Ireland to an applicant identified as Y, after finding that the decision did not explain how new evidence about his claimed membership of a Congolese lay organisation had been assessed.
In a judgment delivered on 8 February 2021, Mr Justice Max Barrett also extended the time for Y to bring judicial review proceedings. The case concerned the Minister’s review under section 49 of the International Protection Act 2015 and the related assessment under section 50, which prohibits return in specified circumstances.
Y, a national of the Democratic Republic of Congo, had claimed international protection in Ireland in April 2018. The IPO refused his protection application and permission to remain in May 2019. After the IPAT affirmed the refusal of protection in August 2019, Y submitted further material for a review, including a membership card and an application form relating to the Conseil de l’Apostolat des Laics. The Minister’s review, dated 29 November 2019 and notified in December, affirmed the earlier refusal of permission to remain and concluded that return to the DRC was not contrary to section 50.
The court accepted that the decision-maker had considered the material submitted. Its concern was that the review gave no reasons explaining the significance, or lack of significance, of the new membership documents. The court said the omission left Y unable to understand why the documents were considered insufficient to establish his claimed membership, which was relevant to his asserted risk of persecution on return. It also found that the review’s discussion of country information, which focused on freedom of movement, did not provide a clear explanation for the conclusion that return would not breach the prohibition on refoulement.
The court rejected Y’s criticism of the review’s Article 8 private-life assessment, finding that the reasons given there were understandable. It also found no specific criticism had been raised about the assessment of his character and conduct, national security and public order, or the common good. Its conclusions on the review’s deficiencies were limited to the matters identified in the judgment; the court did not determine whether Y was in fact a member of the organisation or whether he faced a risk if returned.
The judicial review had been brought outside the 28-day period. The court found substantial grounds to challenge the decision and good and sufficient reason to extend time, taking account of the short delay, the end-of-year holiday period, the absence of claimed prejudice, and the safety concerns raised. It extended the deadline to the date proceedings were filed and ordered certiorari quashing the impugned decision.