Finding that asylum applicant was stateless was lawful

Judicial review – asylum and immigration – applicant born in Bhutan of Nepalise ethnicity challenging the decision of the Refugee Appeals Tribunal refusing him refugee status – Bhutanese government expelled refugees – father was killed and mother disappeared – fled to Nepal - practice whereby Bhutan revoked the citizenship of many members of the Nepalese minority, including those who left the country - lived in Nepal without legal status for a period of about 20 years – came to Ireland – submitted to the tribunal that he was not stateless but was Bhutanese – Tribunal found that he was stateless - allegation that the tribunal erred in determining that Nepal was a country of former habitual residence – alleged failure to consider whether he could be returned to Nepal - point as now pleaded was not actually put to the tribunal and to argue it in judicial review proceedings is pure gaslighting of the decision-maker – alleged failure to address his case of persecution in Bhutan - whether the refugee definition was correctly applied - on the facts of this particular case Bhutan was not his country of habitual residence - he was stateless- the assessment of whether he is a refugee as a stateless person falls to be assessed by reference to Nepal rather than Bhutan – whether the determination of nationality has to be arrived at by reference to the law of the country as applied by it or by reference to international law - steps required in applying the refugee definition - application of those principles – judicial review refused.