The High Court has refused an application to quash the Minister’s 2011 decision refusing permission for a Palestinian applicant to make a further application for refugee status. Ms Justice O’Regan held that the Minister had made no error in reviewing the request under section 17(7) of the Refugee Act 1996, as amended in 2011.
The applicant, identified in the judgment as Y., had been granted leave in 2011 to seek certiorari, an order quashing the Minister’s decision. The request to re-enter the asylum process relied on an asserted personality disorder, the applicant’s atheism, and a recent history of alcohol or substance abuse. The Minister refused the request on 29 July 2011 and, following a review sought by the applicant, issued a final refusal on 11 August 2011.
The applicant argued that the new material, particularly a medical report, made the claim sufficiently different from the earlier refugee claim to justify a further application. The Minister submitted that the report did not establish a personality disorder or show that it had prevented the applicant from raising fear of persecution based on atheism earlier. The Minister also argued that most of the cited circumstances were already known and that there was no evidence linking substance abuse or the other circumstances to a risk of persecution in Palestine.
Justice O’Regan said the applicable test was whether new elements or findings significantly added to the likelihood of the applicant qualifying as a refugee. She accepted the approach described in an earlier High Court judgment, which treated the amended provision as imposing a threshold at least as high as the earlier test for whether a new claim was sufficiently different from one already rejected.
The judge noted that the applicant’s atheism had been disclosed in the original refugee application, so it could not be treated as new. She also found no evidence that a personality disorder, or a history of alcohol or substance abuse, gave rise to persecution. The judge said the assessment was a qualitative decision for the Minister.
The court concluded there was nothing unreasonable or irrational about the 11 August decision and found no error in the review. It refused the application for certiorari. The ruling addressed the legality of the Minister’s review decision; it did not grant permission to make a further refugee-status application.