The High Court has rejected a Palestinian woman’s challenge to a decision refusing her refugee status, leaving the Refugee Appeals Tribunal’s decision in place.
In a judgment delivered on 12 March 2009, Ms Justice Clark said the tribunal had been entitled to conclude that the applicant had not established a well-founded current fear of persecution in Libya. The court did not decide the asylum claim afresh; it considered whether the tribunal’s decision-making process could be challenged on the grounds for which judicial review had been permitted.
The applicant, identified in the judgment as S.H.M., was born in Libya to Palestinian parents and came to Ireland in 2000 to study. Her family had experienced discrimination in Libya, including her father’s dismissal from his teaching job, a period when the children could not attend school, harassment of her sister at university, and fear of attacks that led the applicant and her sisters to limit their movements. She said Libya would not allow her to return after she left to study, and that she could not return to Palestine or settle in Egypt.
The Refugee Appeals Tribunal refused her appeal in May 2006. It accepted that she was truthful, but found that the evidence did not establish a well-founded fear of persecution if she returned to Libya. The applicant argued that the tribunal had failed to consider important evidence of discrimination and whether the cumulative effects could amount to persecution. The respondents argued that she had not shown a subjective fear of persecution and that her statelessness and inability to return, by themselves, did not qualify her for refugee status.
Justice Clark accepted that the tribunal’s reasons lacked clarity, but found no evidence that it had failed to consider the applicant’s evidence and submissions. The judgment noted that she had repeatedly said she would return to Libya if permitted, including to see her mother, and had sought visas to visit. The court said the appeal had not established that her past experiences and inability to return created an apprehension of future persecution.
The court also held that the evidence before the tribunal did not establish current persecution of Palestinians in Libya. It adopted the reasoning in *Revenko v Secretary of State for the Home Department* that statelessness alone does not confer refugee status; a well-founded current fear of persecution for a Convention reason must also be shown.
The application for judicial review failed. The tribunal’s refusal of refugee status therefore stands. The judgment did not grant or determine any separate family reunification claim.