The High Court refused an applicant leave to seek judicial review of a Refugee Appeals Tribunal decision dismissing his appeal against the refusal of refugee status. Ms Justice Dunne ruled on 12 June 2007 that he had not established substantial grounds to challenge the decision.
The applicant, identified in the judgment as A.W.S., is described as a native of Togo who arrived in Ireland in June 2003 and claimed asylum based on a fear of persecution for his political opinions and activity. The Tribunal affirmed the recommendation of the Office of the Refugee Applications Commissioner and dismissed his appeal in a decision dated 7 October 2005.
He argued that the Tribunal had failed to consider the full weight of his evidence, including identity documents, articles he had written, country information and evidence about an alleged assault and a “Red List” in Togo. He also challenged the Tribunal’s treatment of his explanations for not mentioning the assault earlier and for saying that his name was on the list.
The court said the Tribunal’s decision referred to considering the papers, relevant facts, answers, submissions and documents, including country reports submitted after the hearing. Justice Dunne said a decision-maker was not required to refer to every item of evidence or document in a written decision. She found no evidence that contradicted the Tribunal member’s stated consideration of the material, and no basis to conclude that the process used to assess credibility was legally flawed. The court did not reassess the applicant’s credibility or decide his refugee claim afresh.
The applicant also argued that the time between his oral appeal hearing on 16 May 2005 and the Tribunal decision was unreasonable. The judgment recorded that the decision was submitted for typing on 5 August, typed on 10 August, ready for signature on 14 August and signed on 7 October. Justice Dunne distinguished an earlier case involving a delay of about 15 months, finding that the shorter period here did not establish a substantial ground for review.
The court therefore refused leave to apply for judicial review. The judgment does not describe a fresh determination of the applicant’s refugee status.