The High Court has dismissed A.R.’s application to quash a Refugee Appeals Tribunal decision upholding the refusal of his asylum application, while criticising the Tribunal’s reasoning about his delay in seeking asylum.
In a judgment delivered on 3 July 2015, Mr Justice Eagar said the judicial review challenge to the Tribunal’s finding that A.R. had not established a connection to a Refugee Convention ground had not been made out. The court therefore refused certiorari, the order sought to quash the decision.
A.R. told immigration authorities that he feared his brother following a family dispute involving land and business in Pakistan. He said his brother and nephew had died after a fire at a family home, and that he later faced accusations, assault and a threat to shoot him. He said he fled Pakistan in April 2011, spent time in Lahore in hiding, and initially believed he would travel onward to Canada. He applied for asylum in Ireland in August 2011.
The Refugee Applications Commissioner refused the application and found that A.R. had not applied as soon as reasonably practicable. The Commissioner applied a provision that made the appeal a documents-only process. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal in February 2012, reasoning in part that the delay in applying undermined the claimed urgency and well-founded fear.
A.R. argued in the High Court that the Tribunal had relied on delay without properly addressing his explanation, made adverse credibility findings without considering case-specific evidence, and failed to assess his account of hiding in Lahore. His counsel also argued that family membership linked to a land dispute could amount to membership of a particular social group.
The Minister’s counsel submitted that the claim lacked the required connection between the alleged persecution and a Convention ground. The judgment records that the family-social-group argument appeared in the appeal notice but was not specifically pleaded in the judicial review grounds or advanced in the applicant’s submissions.
Justice Eagar said the governing regulations required a connection between a Convention reason and the alleged acts of persecution. He concluded that the challenge to the Tribunal’s finding on that nexus had not been established. He also said judicial review supervises the lawfulness of a decision; it is not an appeal on the merits.
The judge described as “completely legally erroneous” the Tribunal’s statement that the delay in applying negated the urgency expected of a well-founded fear. He said it appeared the Tribunal had failed to deal with A.R.’s reasons for the delay. But because the challenge to the Convention nexus finding failed, that error was not enough to make the Tribunal’s decision unlawful. The court dismissed the application for certiorari.