Minister’s decision refusing Afghani national re-admittance to asylum process was clear and unambiguous

Judicial review – asylum and immigration – substantive hearing – Afghani national challenging the decision of the Minister for Justice refusing to allow him to be re-admitted into the asylum process – argued that the Minister erred in failing to express on a reasoned basis why the redacted decisions of the RAC in respect of Afghan nationals were not such as to make it significantly more likely that he will qualify for protection in the State – argued that the Minister failed to take into account the relevant consideration that the applicant is from Nangarhar, Afghanistan - applied for asylum in Italy - using a false name and date of birth - did not attend for interview - effectively absconded - letter proposing to deport him was never received by him - sought to be readmitted to the asylum process - application was refused – submitted decisions – one applicant deemed eligible for subsidiary protection - no mention is made of Nangarhar and country of origin information is supplied in all three of the letters relates to Kabul – argument wholly without merit given the lack of reference to Nangarhar - country of origin information furnished by the applicant to the Minister did not in fact address the status in Nangarhar - where he did not deem fit to even mention the province of Nangarhar in the various submissions made to the Minister he cannot now complain that Nangarhar was not the focus of the Minister’s attention in dealing with the application – decisions submitted were not specific to him applicant and is therefore akin to country of origin information - the right to a narrative discussion of the evidence submitted could only arise if the documentary evidence was being positively rejected, as opposed to a situation where it was insufficient to take the applicant over the line – argued that there was insufficient reasoning to discount the prior ORAC decisions - essential rationale on foot of which the decision is taken discernible - decision was certainly sparse, nevertheless the reasons were clear and the basis for the decision was unambiguous – judicial review refused.