The High Court found that the Refugee Applications Commissioner had incorrectly applied a finding that a Vietnamese applicant delayed seeking asylum without reasonable cause. It directed that his appeal against the refusal recommendation proceed with an oral hearing before a different member of the Refugee Appeals Tribunal.
The judgment, delivered by Mr Justice Eagar on 15 April 2015, concerned a judicial review challenge to the Commissioner’s February 2010 recommendation that the applicant should not be declared a refugee. The recommendation also restricted him to a written appeal, without an oral hearing, under section 13(6)(c) of the Refugee Act 1996.
The applicant had arrived in Ireland on 2 December 2009 on a valid visa, accompanied by a Vietnamese priest. After the priest returned to Vietnam on 5 January 2010, the applicant applied for refugee status on 11 January. Asked about the interval at interview, he said he had waited for the priest to return and had spent time thinking about applying. His questionnaire also said he had told the priest he intended to stay and seek refugee status.
The Commissioner considered the explanation inadequate and cited the delay as one of several credibility concerns. The applicant’s account included alleged past persecution in Vietnam, including detention and questioning by police. The Commissioner also raised concerns about his knowledge of Catholicism, inconsistencies between visa and asylum applications, his passport and departure from Vietnam, and his conduct after police questioning. It concluded that he had not established a well-founded fear of persecution. Those were the Commissioner’s findings, not findings made by the High Court in this judgment.
Justice Eagar said the interview record showed only one question about the delay, with no further inquiry into why the applicant had waited for the priest’s return. He considered the explanation reasonable and held that the Commissioner had failed to analyse it properly. The court said it had been open to the Commissioner to make a different finding under section 13(6)(b), concerning misleading or incomplete information, but that was not the finding made in this case.
The judgment records that the applicant had also lodged a without-prejudice appeal. The Tribunal refused it on the papers in March 2010; that decision was later quashed by consent in separate judicial review proceedings after the Tribunal conceded it was unlawful.
The High Court’s ruling addressed the section 13(6)(c) finding and the appeal procedure. It directed an oral appeal against the recommendation that the applicant had not established a well-founded fear of persecution, to be heard by a different Tribunal member. It did not itself decide whether the applicant qualified for refugee status.