The High Court has refused an application to quash a recommendation that a Bolivian woman and her minor son should not be declared refugees, allowing their appeal to proceed to the Refugee Appeals Tribunal (RAT).
In a judgment delivered on 19 March 2015, Mr Justice Eagar found that the Refugee Applications Commissioner had made no jurisdictional error warranting judicial review. He held that the Commissioner’s conclusion—that the applicants’ fear of return arose from criminality and had no link to a ground under the Refugee Convention—was reasonable. The court refused certiorari; it did not decide the pending refugee appeal or determine whether the applicants qualified for protection.
The woman’s account, as recorded in the judgment, was that an unidentified man had harassed and threatened her and her son in Bolivia. She said she left for Argentina, returned to Bolivia, and later travelled to Ireland. She did not report the incidents to police, saying she did not know the man’s identity and feared reprisals. The Commissioner’s report found that she had not established a well-founded fear of persecution, questioned whether the incidents were connected to a Convention ground, and recommended that the application be treated as showing no or minimal basis for refugee status. That classification meant an appeal would be decided without an oral hearing.
The applicant argued that the “no basis or minimal basis” finding was unreasonable and would deny the family an oral hearing on credibility issues. Counsel also argued that gender provided the required Convention connection and that the appeal process had to provide an effective remedy. The respondents argued that judicial review was premature because an appeal to the RAT remained available.
Justice Eagar said the RAT appeal allowed the applicant to present new facts and arguments and re-argue the case. He noted that the appeal notice contained detailed issues about documents, country information and submissions. Where an appeal is decided on the papers, he said, the tribunal must examine the notice in detail and address the matters raised, rather than simply state that it has read them.
The judge also said no evidence had been presented to support the claim that an appeal without an oral hearing had little prospect of success. He said the High Court should carefully consider such evidence in an appropriate case. The RAT was required to act fairly and in accordance with the applicable protection rules and procedures. The judgment does not determine how the RAT should resolve this appeal.