The High Court has refused a Georgian applicant’s challenge to the International Protection Appeals Tribunal’s decision to affirm the refusal of refugee and subsidiary protection declarations. The court ruled that the judicial review application was 51 days late and found no good or sufficient reason to extend the deadline. It also considered the substantive arguments and held that the Tribunal’s findings were lawful.
The applicant, identified in the judgment as G.K., had sought protection in Ireland on the basis of his membership of a particular social group related to his sexuality. The International Protection Office recommended refusing both forms of protection in November 2019. After an oral appeal hearing, the Tribunal affirmed that recommendation in a decision dated 8 March 2021 and issued the following day.
The applicant received the Tribunal decision on or around 9 March 2021. His statement of grounds was filed on 27 May. The parties agreed the challenge was outside the statutory 28-day period, though they disagreed about the length of the delay. The court accepted the respondent’s calculation that the filing was 79 days after the decision, or 51 days beyond the deadline. It also said the deadline expired before the Easter vacation began.
The applicant’s counsel attributed the delay to other commitments and accepted responsibility. The court noted affidavit evidence that the applicant had contacted his solicitor the day after receiving the decision to say he wished to challenge it, but found the explanation for the delay lacking in detail. It held that the applicant was bound by his legal representatives’ actions and refused to extend time.
The judge then addressed the merits in case the ruling on delay was wrong. The applicant had challenged five credibility findings, concerning his account of a protest in Georgia, his studies and part-time work, his past relationships, the level of detail in his evidence, and his failure to seek protection during a journey through Vienna. The court found that the Tribunal had identified contradictions in the applicant’s accounts and was entitled to assess his responses and the evidence as a whole. It said the court’s role was not to substitute its own view for the Tribunal’s.
On the Vienna point, the court said the Tribunal had merely noted that the applicant did not seek protection in Austria and had not placed undue weight on it. The judge found all five challenged findings lawful and said the Tribunal’s decision survived in its entirety. The court refused all reliefs sought. It directed the parties to provide brief written submissions within two weeks on the terms of the final order, costs and any other matters.