The High Court has dismissed a Bangladeshi man’s judicial review challenge to the Refugee Appeals Tribunal’s rejection of his asylum appeal.
In a judgment delivered on 26 June 2018, Mr Justice Richard Humphreys found that the tribunal’s decision was based on its assessment of the applicant’s credibility, and that the grounds advanced against it did not establish a basis to overturn it. The order dismissed the application for certiorari; the court did not decide whether the applicant would face persecution if returned to Bangladesh.
The applicant, identified in the judgment as M.H., said he borrowed money in 2004 to travel to the UK for work, where he was not paid. He said he came to Ireland in December 2004 and worked unlawfully. He claimed threats against his family in Bangladesh began in January 2012 because he had not repaid the loan.
After being detected working unlawfully in a restaurant in March 2012, he applied for a work permit, which was refused. A deportation order followed in July 2013. He applied for asylum in September 2014. The Refugee Applications Commissioner refused the application in March 2015, and the Refugee Appeals Tribunal rejected his appeal in November 2016.
The tribunal had questioned discrepancies in the amount borrowed, the applicant’s uncertainty about the lender’s name and contact details, and his account of when he learned about asylum. It found his account unpersuasive and his evidence unreliable. Mr Justice Humphreys said the tribunal member, who had seen and heard the applicant give evidence, was better placed than the court to assess his credibility.
The judicial review challenge included claims of factual errors, inadequate reasons for rejecting his explanation for delaying his asylum claim, insufficient regard to country reports, and failures to consider political opinion, social group, exploitation and his personal circumstances. The judge rejected those grounds. He said the tribunal had considered relevant material, and that the applicant’s credibility finding meant the convention-nexus issue did not arise.
The applicant also relied in the High Court on a provision of Bangladesh’s Code of Civil Procedure concerning imprisonment for debt. The judge said the provision had not been brought to the tribunal’s attention, despite the tribunal asking the applicant’s legal advisers for relevant legal references. He added that the tribunal’s decision did not depend on this issue, but on other credibility findings.
Because the application failed on its merits, the judge did not consider the effect of the applicant’s delay in progressing his application for leave to bring judicial review proceedings.