The High Court refused an application for leave to bring judicial review proceedings against the Refugee Appeals Tribunal’s refusal of a Chinese man’s appeal against the rejection of his refugee status claim.
In a judgment delivered on 2 June 2005, Ms Justice Dunne said the applicant had not shown substantial grounds to argue that the Tribunal’s decision was invalid or should be quashed. The ruling was at the leave stage: the court refused permission to pursue judicial review and did not grant the relief sought.
The applicant had asked the court to quash the Tribunal’s decision of 7 December 2004 and a Tribunal member’s recommendation of 29 November 2004. He also sought a declaration that the decisions were unlawful, an injunction against steps towards deportation, and a rehearing of his refugee claim.
The applicant said he left China in 1993 because he feared political persecution. He claimed he supported the democracy movement by printing and distributing material about the 1989 Beijing protests, and that his wife had faced harassment and detention and other family members had been watched. These were his claims before the asylum authorities, not findings made by the High Court.
The Tribunal had relied on his delay in seeking asylum in Ireland, his earlier asylum application in the United Kingdom, and concerns about his credibility, including how he obtained a Chinese passport. It concluded that international protection was not his primary motive, that he had been safe from persecution in England, and that the passport account undermined his credibility. The applicant argued that the Tribunal had not properly assessed his claimed risk on return in light of his account and country information.
Justice Dunne said the applicant had to rebut the statutory presumption that he was not a refugee because he had previously applied for asylum in another state. She accepted that a well-founded fear of persecution involves both subjective and objective elements. However, she found the Tribunal’s consideration of the delay and earlier UK application could not be regarded as irrational. She also rejected the challenge to the Tribunal’s reference to the applicant being safe in England, interpreting it as meaning he was free from persecution.
The judge concluded that the applicant had not established that the process used to assess his credibility was flawed. She said he had not made out a case for leave to seek judicial review.