The High Court has dismissed a Pakistani man’s application to quash the International Protection Appeals Tribunal’s rejection of his protection appeal, finding no basis to overturn the tribunal’s decision.
The applicant, identified in the judgment as M.I. (Pakistan), was born in 1974 and arrived in Ireland in 2015. His asylum claim was refused in 2016. After the International Protection Act 2015 took effect, he was treated as having applied for international protection and later sought subsidiary protection. The International Protection Office refused that claim in March 2018, and the tribunal rejected his appeal in September 2018.
The applicant brought judicial review proceedings, with certiorari—the quashing of the tribunal decision—as the main relief sought. He argued, among other grounds, that the tribunal had not reasonably assessed documentary and country information, had wrongly grouped events together, failed to make clear credibility findings, and relied on inconsistencies without properly considering his explanations. He also argued that it had not assessed the risk of persecution or serious harm if he were returned to Pakistan.
Mr Justice Richard Humphreys rejected those challenges. He said the tribunal member recorded having considered the submitted documents, and the applicant had not shown otherwise. The court also found that the tribunal had rejected the applicant’s account, apart from accepting that he was from Pakistan, and that the reasons for its conclusions were apparent. The judgment noted that the tribunal member had seen and heard the applicant and was better placed to assess his credibility.
On the claimed failure to consider risk on return, the judge said the tribunal decision had considered and rejected the risk of persecution or serious harm. He also rejected the complaint that the tribunal had failed to assess exposure to inhuman or degrading treatment, noting that the decision referred to the relevant provision and addressed that aspect of the claim.
The applicant relied on a counsellor’s report concerning his recall of events. The judge said the tribunal had considered the report but had not accepted the explanations it offered. He noted that no medical report establishing medical difficulties had been produced and that independent medical consultation had not been requested at the tribunal hearing. The court did not find that the tribunal was required to obtain such an assessment in this case.
The judge also addressed two alleged factual errors raised during oral submissions. Those points had not been pleaded or set out in a grounding affidavit, and the applicant had not shown that either was material. The court therefore did not grant relief on them.
The High Court dismissed the application. It did not quash or otherwise alter the tribunal’s decision.