The High Court has rejected an appeal against the revocation of a Sudanese man’s refugee status, finding that false information about his identity and travel was decisive in the original grant. The court confirmed the Minister’s decision to revoke his status.
The man had been granted refugee status in 2007 after applying under a different name. In his 2006 asylum questionnaire, he said he had no passport or other documents and had been smuggled from Sudan to Ireland. He gave evidence that he had fled after being detained and fearing persecution.
The Minister began revocation proceedings in 2009 after information from UK authorities linked the man to visa applications made in Sudan and travel using a Sudanese passport. The Minister revoked his status in October 2010, citing a different identity, an undisclosed passport and UK visa applications.
On appeal, the man accepted that he had given false information but argued it was not decisive to the grant of refugee status. He said he had used a false passport for exceptional reasons, including returning to Sudan to deal with a debt and to see his sick daughter. The Minister argued that the concealed information would have led asylum officials to assess his claim differently and that the appeal court could decide the matter based on the evidence before it, including evidence given at the hearing.
The judge found the man’s accounts of his passport and return trips to Sudan not credible. The court found that he had applied for a UK visa in Khartoum in September 2006, entered the UK before travelling to Ireland, and arrived in Ireland carrying the same Sudanese passport. It also rejected his explanations for later trips and drew an adverse inference from his failure to produce a Sudanese identity card he said was held by his brother.
The judge held that the false identity, passport and travel information, considered together, meant the asylum application would have been refused had the true facts been known. The appeal was rejected, leaving the Minister’s revocation in place.
The court did not decide whether the man had re-availed himself of Sudan’s protection by returning there. The judgment says the appeal court’s task was to decide whether the revocation was correct or should be withdrawn; it could not remit the matter to the Minister for reconsideration.