The High Court has dismissed a South African couple’s judicial review challenge to the refusal of their international protection claims and to the designation of South Africa as a safe country of origin.
Ms Justice Siobhán Phelan ruled that the couple had standing to bring the case and extended the time limit for challenging the International Protection Appeals Tribunal’s decision. But she found no basis to overturn either the continuing designation or the Tribunal’s decisions refusing refugee and subsidiary protection.
The couple, anonymised in the judgment as W.P.L. and B.P., applied for protection in Ireland in January 2021. They said they feared crime and farm attacks, and that their race, perceived wealth or association with white farmers could put them at risk. They also cited difficulty finding work, which they attributed in part to Black Economic Empowerment policies.
The Tribunal accepted that the applicants and members of their family had experienced crimes, including a robbery at gunpoint and attacks on a farm. It found, however, that the incidents were not shown to be motivated by race and did not amount to persecution or serious harm. It also concluded that South African authorities could provide the couple with state protection, despite shortcomings in policing and the high level of crime. The Tribunal rejected their protection claims after an appeal hearing in November 2022.
The couple challenged both the Tribunal’s decision and the Minister’s continued designation of South Africa as safe. The High Court allowed an extension of time for the Tribunal challenge, despite an unexplained six-day delay in January 2023. It said the delay largely coincided with the Christmas court vacation and that the respondents had identified no prejudice. The judge also held that the applicants could challenge the designation because it could still affect later stages of their immigration process.
On the designation, the judge held that EU law did not prevent Ireland from providing for safe-country designations in domestic law. She found that a 2021 review had considered the statutory criteria and available country information, and that retaining South Africa’s designation was not manifestly arbitrary or demonstrably illogical. The challenge alleging a failure to review also failed: the applicants had not identified a significant change since the 2021 review that required a further review.
The court found that the Tribunal had assessed the applicants’ circumstances and the country information, and that its conclusions were open to it. The proceedings were dismissed. The judge said she would hear the parties on matters arising and the final form of order if they could not agree it.