High Court refuses leave to challenge the decision of the Refugee Appeals Tribunal to refuse refugee status to a Zimbabwean minor born in this State, on the grounds that he had failed to establish substantial grounds to challenge the decision, and could not in a judicial review seek to challenge the decision on the basis that the Tribunal failed to address a key aspect of his claim when this aspect of his claim was not raised before the Tribunal.
Judicial review – asylum and immigration – leave application – Zimbabwean minor born in Ireland challenging the decision of the Refugee Appeals Tribunal to refuse him refugee status - mother made an application for asylum on behalf of her child – refused asylum - substantial grounds test – argued that the tribunal erred in failing to consider persecution on grounds of being born outside Zimbabwe as the child of asylum seekers – relied on High Court decision recently overturned by Supreme Court – no substantial grounds – argued that the tribunal should have dealt with persecution on the basis of educational discrimination by reference to membership of a social group – alleged failure by the decision-maker to analyse a particular topic - must be a certain onus on the applicant to have identified that topic in its dealings with the decision maker - one cannot put up a particular proposition to the decision-maker, have that rejected, and then seek judicial review on the basis that the decision-maker did not deal with something else - nowhere in the papers before the tribunal is there any attempt to define the claim as being one based on membership of a particular social group - tribunal decision deals with the claim actually made - no substantial grounds to seek judicial review of the decision on the basis of a different claim - no Geneva Convention nexus supporting the current claim was set out to the tribunal - pure post hoc concoction - no obligation on a decision-maker to address a “core claim” if an application is being rejected on other grounds - tribunal did address the core claim - now trying to make a significantly different case to the court – alleged selective use of country of origin information and failed to weigh fairly and adequately country of origin information in respect of the risk of discrimination - use of the country of origin information, and the weight to be attached to it, are classically matters for the decision-maker – no substantial grounds.