The High Court refused M.K.’s application to extend the time for bringing judicial review proceedings against the Refugee Appeals Tribunal’s rejection of his asylum appeal. It held that he had not shown an arguable case in law, making it unnecessary to decide whether there was good and sufficient reason to extend the deadline.
The Tribunal notified M.K. of its decision on 31 January 2006. The statutory 14-day period expired on 13 February, but he issued proceedings on 10 March. He said he had needed time to find a solicitor and obtain his file from the Refugee Legal Service after it could no longer assist him. The respondents argued that he had spent time seeking further opinions.
M.K., who sought asylum in Ireland in May 2005, said he was a member of the Berti tribe from Armo village in Sudan’s Darfur region. He alleged that Janjaweed militia captured and mistreated him, that he escaped, and that an attack later destroyed his village and killed his brother and sister. He said he travelled through Sudan before reaching Dublin by ship.
The Refugee Appeals Tribunal rejected his appeal after finding his account not credible. Its reasons included discrepancies in his account of his origins, his flight and his journey to Ireland. The Tribunal also referred to the limited country information submitted about the Berti and the inability of researchers to locate Armo on a map.
For judicial review, M.K. argued that the Tribunal had wrongly suggested he could avoid persecution by relocating to Thalinja or Port Sudan. He said there was no evidence those towns were safe for a Berti person, that relocation had not been put to him at the oral hearing, and that state-linked persecution could extend across Sudan.
Justice Clark said the Tribunal’s central decision was that M.K. had not established persecution, based on its credibility assessment. The relocation comment was not determinative of the refusal and had no bearing on the outcome, the judge said. The evidence as a whole was reasonably capable of supporting the finding that M.K. was not credible. She found no defect in the appeal process or failure to observe fairness and justice.
The court therefore refused the application to extend time. The judgment did not quash the Tribunal’s decision or grant leave for judicial review.