The High Court has refused an applicant leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal over the reasons given for refusing permission to make a further protection application.
The application was heard on 26 April 2017. The applicant sought a certificate under section 5(3)(a) of the Illegal Immigrants (Trafficking) Act 2000. The proposed question concerned whether a decision-maker gives sufficient reasons by stating that submitted material was considered and that the statutory criteria were not met, without explaining why the material failed to satisfy those criteria.
The application arose from an earlier High Court judgment delivered on 23 February 2017. In the present judgment, Ms Justice O’Regan considered the applicant’s arguments that the earlier ruling conflicted with decisions in other cases and that a similar point had previously been certified for appeal.
The court rejected the claimed conflict with P.B.N. v Minister for Justice and Equality. It said that in P.B.N. the decision did not appear to engage with a relevant report, while in this case the decision expressly stated that all matters had been considered. The applicant’s submissions about two earlier ORAC decisions were brief: they said other Afghan nationals had received subsidiary protection and that there was a reasonable chance the applicant might qualify. The judgment said no factual background had been provided to link the applicant to those successful cases.
The court also distinguished Y.Y. v Minister for Justice and Equality, noting differences in how the applicants had linked their circumstances to comparable cases and in the legal threshold for an appeal. It further considered that the public interest in certifying the issue was reduced because a similar point had already been certified in R.A. v Refugee Appeals Tribunal.
Applying the test for a certificate, the court concluded that the proposed appeal did not meet the requirements of exceptional public importance and desirability in the public interest. The application for leave to appeal was refused. The ruling concerned certification for an appeal; it did not determine the underlying protection application.