No flaw in decision-making process in refusing Mauritian family asylum

Judicial review – asylum and immigration – telescoped hearing – Mauritian parents and their two children challenging the decision of the Refugee Appeals Tribunal refusing them refugee status – mother came to Ireland on a student visa – became sick whilst pregnant and had to give up her education - visa expired - could not apply for renewal of her student visa because she had ceased education – applied for asylum with her two children – claimed that her father remarried – this marriage ended – she sought to take the children – her father disagreed and killed his father in law – her partner is not Hindu – general poverty in Mauritius – found that she had not identified any past persecution in Mauritius and had not established any forward looking fear of persecution in Mauritius – father claimed that he was denied adequate employment opportunities by a Hindu-dominated administration on account of him being part of a Muslim minority group – also refused asylum - papers-only appeal – standard of extreme care - argued that the finding that there is no evidence that they would be at risk of persecution in Mauritius as a result of their relationship”, is wrong and constitutes a failure on the part of the tribunal member to make a lawful assessment of the evidence - argued that as a result of breaching societal mores by entering a mixed ethnic and religious relationship, they were exposed to discrimination – argued that the tribunal member selectively relied upon country of origin information and failed to have proper regard to certain information contained in the detailed notice of appeal and appended documentation, and thereby failed to have proper regard to the personal circumstances of the their case – argued that there has not been an adequate investigation of the claim at appeal because the appeal to the Tribunal is de novo and they are entitled to enter new evidence, the statements made by the applicants in the notice of appeal are, effectively, new evidence – argued that there was an inadequate investigation of the claims of persecution – tribunal argued that their submissions amounted to an appeal of the tribunal decision rather than a review - statement made in a notice of appeal does not automatically constitute new evidence – Court satisfied that the Tribunal member engaged sufficiently with the assertions made in the notice of appeal - decision must be read as a whole - tribunal member engaged with the material before him – no flaw in the decision-making process - assessment of facts and circumstances’ - tribunal member did consider the evidence before him and the claims made by each of them.