The High Court refused an applicant leave to seek judicial review of the Refugee Applications Commissioner’s decision refusing her asylum application, finding that the Refugee Appeals Tribunal was the more appropriate route for the issues raised.
The applicant, identified in the judgment as J.N.E., came to Ireland from Nigeria in September 2015. She was refused entry at Dublin Airport and taken to the Dóchas Centre, where she applied for asylum. The commissioner refused her application in a decision sent on 23 August 2016. Rather than appeal to the tribunal, she sought to challenge that decision by judicial review.
Her application for leave was filed on 5 October 2016, outside the time limit. Mr Justice Richard Humphreys said the explanation for the delay was thin, but assumed for the purpose of considering the application, without deciding the point, that he would be prepared to extend time.
The applicant advanced four grounds. She argued that the commissioner should have considered all aspects of her claim, including internal relocation, even after rejecting her credibility or finding no objective fear. The judge found no substantial grounds for requiring a decision-maker to make findings on every issue after deciding a claim on an independent basis. He said the tribunal could make new findings on appeal and consider other matters if necessary.
The applicant also disputed the use of the balance of probabilities in assessing her claim, which turned in part on her sexual orientation. The court said she should first appeal to the tribunal and could seek leave for judicial review later if unsuccessful and if substantial grounds could then be established. It likewise rejected the challenge to the assessment of her circumstances, saying judicial review was not the appropriate route for an allegedly defective assessment of facts where an appeal was available.
A further ground concerned the commissioner’s failure to find that the applicant was pregnant, despite correspondence from the commissioner’s office treating her as pregnant. The judge said an appeal was the more appropriate remedy for an alleged error of fact and also noted that the applicant had not provided information readily available to her on that issue.
The court refused leave to seek judicial review. It directed that any application for leave to appeal be listed and, if made, served on the respondents. It also ordered the applicant to serve the Chief State Solicitor’s Office with a copy of the judgment within seven days.