The High Court refused leave to seek judicial review of a Refugee Appeals Tribunal decision rejecting A. B.’s application for refugee status, finding no substantial grounds to contend that the decision should be quashed.
In a judgment delivered on 30 June 2006, Mr Justice Feeney also extended the time for bringing the judicial review application to 1 September 2005. He accepted that delay arose while legal aid was sought and obtained. The extension addressed the timing of the application; the court separately considered whether the challenge met the statutory threshold for leave.
The Tribunal had dismissed A. B.’s appeal on 8 June 2005, affirming the Refugee Applications Commissioner’s recommendation that he not be declared a refugee. The case had been reconsidered after an earlier Tribunal decision was quashed by the High Court on 11 May 2005.
The judgment records that A. B., described as a Kurd from Iraq, had earlier sought asylum in the United Kingdom under a different name and date of birth. The judgment says the earlier application came to light after fingerprint information produced a match. In Ireland, A. B. gave a different account of when he left Iraq and explained that he had not disclosed the UK application because he feared being returned there and then sent to Iraq.
The Tribunal found that his statements and information were false, contradictory, misleading or incomplete, and that his account lacked credibility. A. B. argued that the Tribunal had not properly considered his explanations, assessed the different elements of his claim, or taken account of country information and the conditions in Iraq. He also challenged the Tribunal’s treatment of his claimed fear, which was based on his account of his family history, including his father’s alleged involvement with the Baath party and alleged murder.
The judge held that the Tribunal had considered the explanation for the different names, dates and changing account. He found there was a rational basis for the adverse credibility assessment. Because the claimed fear depended on accepting the applicant’s account of his family history, the judge concluded that the credibility finding undermined the subjective element of the claimed fear. He rejected the related grounds concerning country information and the forward-looking assessment of risk.
The court did not determine afresh whether A. B. qualified for refugee status. It decided only that the grounds advanced did not establish substantial grounds for contending that the Tribunal decision should be quashed. Leave was refused.