The High Court refused leave to seek judicial review of a decision upholding the refusal of refugee status to an anonymised Sudanese applicant, finding that an arguable flaw in the Refugee Appeals Tribunal’s assessment of his travel account did not justify reconsidering the other credibility findings.
Ms Justice Mary Irvine delivered judgment on 17 June 2009. The application sought to challenge the tribunal’s decision and recommendation, have the case remitted for a new hearing and restrain the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform from proceeding with a proposed deportation order while the proceedings were pending.
The applicant said he and his wife arrived in Ireland in June 2006 and sought refugee status. He claimed persecution linked to his support for the Beja Congress and his marriage against his wife’s family’s wishes. The Refugee Applications Commissioner refused his application, citing credibility concerns about his account of the Beja language, military service, marriage and journey to Ireland. The Tribunal upheld that decision after an appeal hearing.
In seeking leave, the applicant argued that the tribunal had made unsupported credibility findings and failed to properly consider his explanations and evidence of past persecution. The respondents submitted that the tribunal had assessed the evidence within its jurisdiction and that the High Court should not substitute its view on credibility.
Justice Irvine found that the tribunal was entitled to its conclusions about the language issue and the applicant’s account of his marriage and national service. She said the evidence supported those findings and that the tribunal had assessed the explanations given.
But the judge was not satisfied that the tribunal had correctly rejected the applicant’s account of travelling to Ireland. The tribunal had given no reason to doubt that account, she said, noting that asylum seekers may arrive without travel documents or knowledge of countries crossed in transit.
The judge nevertheless concluded that the travel issue was not central to the applicant’s overall credibility assessment or asylum claim. The other adverse findings were supported by evidence, and the flaw in the travel assessment did not warrant reconsideration of those findings. The court dismissed the claim and refused leave.