The High Court refused an Iranian asylum applicant leave to seek judicial review of a recommendation that he not be declared a refugee, finding that his complaints could be dealt with through his pending appeal to the Refugee Appeals Tribunal (RAT).
In a judgment delivered on 6 February 2008, Mr Justice Brian McGovern considered an application to quash a recommendation made by the Refugee Applications Commissioner (RAC) on 20 December 2005. The court was deciding whether to grant leave to bring judicial review proceedings; it did not determine the applicant’s asylum appeal or make a final ruling on whether he was entitled to refugee status.
The applicant, identified as A.Z., said he was an Iranian citizen of Kurdish ethnicity who had fled after political and ethnic persecution linked to his support for the Komala party. He said he took part in an anti-government demonstration in Piranshahir, was injured while fleeing and woke in hospital. He claimed his uncle later helped him leave and that he went into hiding before coming to Ireland.
The RAC rejected his asylum application following adverse credibility findings. A.Z. challenged the way the Commissioner assessed his account, including information about the Komala party, the location of Azadi Square and the length of his hospital stay. He said he had been in hospital for four days, while the RAC report referred to four months.
The judge held that the claim that the RAC had confused two separate parties, “Komala” and “Komalah”, was raised too late: it had not been included in the original grounds for judicial review. He also said the material later submitted on that point did not clearly support the claim that the organisations were distinct. The judge considered that any factual error about the party information would have been made within the Commissioner’s jurisdiction and would not, on that basis, be amenable to judicial review.
On Azadi Square, the judge said the applicant might be right that a square of that name existed in Piranshahir, despite the RAC report placing it in Tehran. But he considered an appeal the more suitable route to address that factual dispute. He took the same view of the hospital-stay discrepancy, saying it could be raised before the appeal tribunal and that the reference to four months did not appear particularly significant to the reasoning about the applicant’s account of leaving hospital.
The applicant had lodged an appeal to the RAT. The High Court exercised its discretion against granting leave, concluding that the appeal process could adequately address the complaints. The judgment therefore refused permission to proceed with judicial review; it did not decide the pending appeal.