The High Court has rejected a Bangladeshi man’s challenge to the Minister for Justice and Equality’s refusal to grant him subsidiary protection.
In a judgment delivered on 26 June 2012, Ms Justice M. Clark said the Minister’s reasoning could not be faulted. The case was a judicial review of the refusal, not a fresh assessment of the applicant’s protection claim.
The applicant argued that because neither the Refugee Applications Commissioner nor the Refugee Appeals Tribunal had made an express finding against his credibility, the Minister had to assess the relevant facts and, if necessary, hear from him. He relied on earlier High Court decisions concerning the Minister’s duty to cooperate and fair procedures where new material is considered.
The applicant’s asylum claim arose from a land dispute in Bangladesh and an alleged false accusation that he was involved in the killing of a local politician’s son. The Refugee Applications Commissioner’s recommendation against refugee status was upheld on appeal. The judgment said the decisions raised concerns about aspects of his account, including his description of the death, the documents he produced, his travel to Ireland and whether he had sought state protection. The Tribunal also found no political opinion could be imputed to him from what it regarded as a land dispute.
When applying for subsidiary protection in November 2009, the applicant repeated the land dispute and murder accusation claims. His representatives also said he would face torture or inhuman and degrading treatment if returned, and that he had suffered such treatment before, but the judgment said the submission did not explain that past treatment. The application asserted that his general credibility had been established, but the court rejected that characterisation of the earlier decisions.
The judge found that no new evidence had been put before the Minister. She said the case did not fall within the rare circumstances where fairness would require an oral hearing before rejecting a new claim or documents on credibility grounds. She also found that the refusal was not based solely on the earlier rejection of the same account: the Minister had concluded that the applicant could seek protection through Bangladesh’s authorities, courts or Human Rights Commission, and that he had not demonstrated previous serious harm.
The court dismissed the judicial review application.