The High Court refused leave and dismissed a Pakistani woman’s judicial review claim challenging the Refugee Appeals Tribunal’s decision to affirm a recommendation that she not be declared a refugee. The court did not determine the internal relocation issue, saying it need not consider it after finding that the Tribunal had made no real attempt to address it.
The applicant said her family had arranged for her to marry a cousin, identified in the judgment as “F”. She said her family supported her decision not to proceed, but F and his family threatened and followed her. She claimed she feared persecution, including honour killing, if returned to Pakistan, and that the state could not or would not protect her. She arrived in Ireland in January 2012 and sought asylum.
The Refugee Applications Commissioner recommended that she not be recognised as a refugee and found that section 13(6)(b) of the Refugee Act 1996 applied, citing information about earlier UK visa applications and travel that she had not disclosed until confronted with fingerprint evidence. The applicant did not challenge the Commissioner’s finding separately. In June 2013, the Tribunal affirmed the recommendation after considering her appeal, submissions and country information.
The applicant argued that the Tribunal had made adverse credibility findings in a paper-only appeal without an oral hearing, failed to explain clearly why her account was rejected, and inadequately assessed state protection and internal relocation. The respondents relied on her lack of candour and disputed that the Tribunal had made a series of fresh credibility findings.
Justice Eagar accepted that a paper-only appeal required extreme care, and was satisfied that the Tribunal had exercised it. He also concluded that the Tribunal’s decision made clear why it found the evidence did not establish refugee status. The court agreed that the Tribunal had not made a “host of fresh credibility findings” and said the applicant’s approach to the asylum process affected her claim to discretionary relief.
The judge found that the Tribunal had made no real attempt to deal with internal relocation, but said he need not consider that issue in the circumstances. He declined to interfere with the Tribunal’s conclusion that the applicant had not established a claim for refugee status. As the case was a telescoped application for leave, he refused leave and dismissed the claim.