High Court grants leave to judicially review the decision of the Minister for Justice affirming the decision to refuse a national from the Democratic Republic of Congo re-admittance into the asylum process, on the grounds that, in assessing the application, the review decision-maker did not in fact apply the essential components of applicable legislation, namely whether the applicant presented a new element or finding which significantly added to the likelihood of his qualifying as a refugee.
Judicial review – asylum and immigration – application for leave - national of the Democratic Republic of Congo challenging the decision of the Minister for Justice to refuse him re-admittance to the asylum process – refused asylum and subsidiary protection – deportation ordered – application to revoke deportation order refused - basis for the application to re-enter – report on unsafe refoulement – application to re-enter was refused - review application was unsuccessful - no new evidence – deported to DRC - subjected to torture by the authorities shortly after his arrival in DRC - fled to Zambia and subsequently South Africa – his shop there destroyed in xenophobic attack – returned to this State - refused leave to land and was subsequently arrested and detained – granted an injunction restraining his deportation – failed asylum seeker – failure to consider report – leave conceded on three grounds - argued that the finding that “no new evidence had been provided” was fundamentally flawed - reliance was placed on an outdated report - particularly cogent, authoritative and objective evidence - only issue for the review decision-maker is whether the applicant had presented a new claim or element not previously considered - report was not mentioned in the decision – UNHCR report favoured entirely over the reports submitted by the applicant without stating the reasons for such preference – whether the Minister applied the correct test - in assessing the application the review decision-maker did not in fact apply the essential components of the s. 17(7) of the 1996 Act, namely whether the applicant presented a new element or finding which significantly added to the likelihood of his qualifying as a refugee – European law – equivalence - review decision is not an adequate appeal – Court of appeal dismissed similar point – leave refused – failure to provide reasons – reasons not clear – leave granted.