The High Court extended the time for a Sri Lankan man to bring a judicial review of a 2011 decision rejecting his refugee claim, but refused leave to challenge that decision.
In a judgment delivered on 29 July 2016, Ms Justice Stewart considered the man’s application to quash a decision by the Refugee Appeals Tribunal (RAT), which had affirmed a negative recommendation by the Refugee Applications Commissioner. The judicial review proceedings had been issued about two weeks beyond the 14-day time limit. The respondents did not oppose an extension, and the judge found there were good and sufficient reasons to grant one.
The applicant, identified in the judgment as R.S. (Sri Lanka), said he had been an LTTE photographer and was arrested, detained and tortured by Sri Lankan state authorities and members of the EPDP. He claimed he was later forced to identify an LTTE commander, after which the EPDP shot a man in front of him. He said he feared the LTTE because he had given information to state authorities. These were his allegations; the tribunal rejected his account on credibility grounds.
The applicant argued that the tribunal had wrongly relied on his 47 days in Moscow without seeking asylum, failed to properly assess medical reports and country information, and did not fairly consider the risk arising from protests he attended in Ireland. The respondents said the case turned on credibility and that the tribunal had considered the evidence.
Justice Stewart found the tribunal was entitled to treat the applicant’s explanation for not applying for asylum in Russia as undermining his credibility. She also concluded that the tribunal had considered the medical reports and was entitled to decide what weight to give them. On country information, the judgment noted that more than 1,200 pages had been submitted, but said the tribunal was not required to refer to every document. The judge was satisfied that the decision showed the material had been taken into account.
The court also found that the tribunal had assessed potential danger on return, including the asserted risks from the LTTE and Sri Lankan authorities, and had rationally addressed the applicant’s participation in protests in Ireland. The judgment said the tribunal had rejected the applicant’s account but also considered, on an “even if” basis, whether protection or relocation would be available if the account were true.
Justice Stewart concluded that the tribunal’s decision was reasoned and rational and refused leave. The judgment does not grant refugee status or make a fresh determination of the applicant’s protection claim.