The High Court has quashed a decision refusing to readmit a Democratic Republic of Congo national to Ireland’s asylum process, finding that the decision did not show how his supporting material had been assessed.
The judicial review concerned a refusal made on 25 June 2015 under section 17(7) of the Refugee Act 1996. The applicant had sought readmission on the basis of information about the risk to failed asylum seekers returned to the DRC, including two reports titled “Unsafe Return”.
The applicant had arrived in Ireland in 2009 and initially sought asylum as an Angolan/Cabindese national, alleging persecution linked to political opinion. His asylum application was unsuccessful, and a deportation order was made in 2013. He later applied for readmission, arguing that new information showed he could face persecution if returned to the DRC.
The court held that the relevant comparison under section 17(7) was with the applicant’s original asylum application, rather than his later subsidiary protection application. It said the decision maker’s role at this stage was to assess whether material could constitute new information that might warrant readmission, not to determine the ultimate merits of a refugee claim.
The judge found that the refusal reproduced extensive passages from a 2015 UK Upper Tribunal decision, B.M., while the applicant’s country information was rejected without a clear explanation. The court said it could not tell whether the decision maker had evaluated material cited in B.M. or simply quoted from that decision. Although decision makers need not summarise every document, the reasons should make clear that a critical assessment took place.
The court concluded that the decision lacked transparency and fairness and could not be subjected to the thorough judicial review required. It quashed the refusal of readmission. The ruling did not determine whether the applicant qualified for asylum or whether the country information established a risk on return. The judge also declined to refer the proposed EU-law questions to the Court of Justice and did not rule on the other submissions, including the applicant’s broader challenge to reliance on B.M.