The High Court has dismissed N.N.’s challenge to a decision refusing to recognise him as a refugee, finding that he had not shown good and sufficient reason for bringing his judicial review application late. The court also rejected the challenge on its merits, insofar as necessary.
The case concerned an October 2015 decision by the Refugee Appeals Tribunal, now the International Protection Appeals Tribunal, affirming a recommendation that N.N. should not be declared a refugee. He sought leave for judicial review in March 2016, more than three months outside the statutory 28-day period. The court found no basis to accept the claim that an extension had already been granted when leave was first sought; it had consulted the recording of that hearing and found no reference to such an application or ruling.
N.N. said he had not understood a letter from the Refugee Legal Service and had repeatedly been told to wait for further correspondence. He also said he had limited means, receiving €19 a week, and did not think he could afford another solicitor. The judge found the claims about advice were uncorroborated and that N.N. had not explained why he could not seek another solicitor sooner. He concluded that N.N. had not shown reasonable diligence and that the challenge reflected a new legal view by later lawyers of a decision already considered by his former representatives. The court therefore refused the extension.
N.N.’s underlying protection claim included alleged attacks on his family in the Democratic Republic of Congo and an alleged risk linked to his family and involvement with the UDPS political party. The tribunal had found his claim of fear of persecution not credible. The High Court held that the tribunal had not erred by applying the balance of probabilities to past events, following a recent High Court decision on the standard of proof. It also said the benefit of the doubt was unavailable because the tribunal was not satisfied as to N.N.’s general credibility.
The court rejected claims that the tribunal had disregarded appeal grounds and country information, noting that the tribunal had decided the appeal on credibility and that N.N. had not shown how the material could undermine that finding. It also rejected the argument that credibility could not be assessed using matters outside the core persecution claim. The judge noted that the tribunal had separately rejected key assertions about who orchestrated the attacks and N.N.’s political involvement.
The court refused the extension of time, refused the substantive application insofar as necessary, and ordered the proceedings dismissed. It did not quash the tribunal’s decision.