The High Court has granted S. Q. leave to seek judicial review of the refusal of his application for refugee status and the Refugee Appeals Tribunal member’s recommendation underlying that refusal. The court found substantial grounds for three groups of challenges, but did not determine the asylum claim or quash the decisions at this stage.
S. Q., a Syrian national, claimed asylum in Ireland on the basis that he feared persecution as a homosexual if returned to Syria. He also said he feared harm as a failed asylum seeker. The judgment records his account of family pressure, an assault and shooting by his father in 2006, and help from local police in searching for him. These were his claims; the leave decision did not establish them as findings of fact.
The Tribunal rejected his appeal in 2008 and affirmed the Refugee Applications Commissioner’s recommendation against refugee status. At the oral appeal hearing, the presenting officer’s position became central to the later challenge. Affidavits from S. Q. and his solicitor said the officer could not stand over the earlier assessment report, considered S. Q. had answered questions fully and candidly, and said he believed the Tribunal had heard the truth. The Tribunal’s determination, by contrast, recorded that the Commissioner submitted S. Q. had failed to establish persecution and wished to resubmit the report.
Justice Paul McDermott said the affidavit evidence was unchallenged. He considered that the Tribunal had arguably made a fundamental factual error about whether the report was submitted and failed to have regard to the presenting officer’s reported comments. The court also said the Tribunal’s consideration of the claimed risk to S. Q. as a homosexual required challenge, including whether he would have to conceal his sexual orientation to avoid persecution. It described the UK Supreme Court’s approach in H.J. (Iran) as persuasive, though not binding.
The court granted leave to seek certiorari on grounds concerning the hearing record and credibility assessment, the claimed persecution as a homosexual in Syria, and the alleged failure to determine the risk on return as a failed asylum seeker. It refused leave on the separate ground that the Tribunal had failed to consider earlier Tribunal decisions submitted in support of the case. It also found it unnecessary to grant leave for the declaration sought.
The ruling permits a judicial review application on the specified grounds. It does not itself quash the 2008 refusal or recommendation, decide the underlying refugee claim, or make a final finding on the alleged risks on return.