Ruling in asylum seeker's appeal reserved

The High Court has reserved judgment on an application by a Russian man to challenge a decision of the Minister for Justice refusing…

The High Court has reserved judgment on an application by a Russian man to challenge a decision of the Minister for Justice refusing him refugee status here.

Mr Justice Finnegan expressed concerns about aspects of the procedure under which Mr Valeri Zgnat'ev's application was determined. Mr Zgnat'ev's application had been deemed "mainfestly unfounded" in June and as such, its processing had been accelerated. The judge noted Mr Zgnat'ev (52), with an address at Phibsboro, Dublin, had not received an assessment of his interview with a civil servant before it went to a deciding officer and did not receive the assessment before it went to the Minister to make his final decision.

Mr Frank Callanan SC, for the Minister, said there had been no departure from the procedures set out in the Hope Hanlan letter (a letter of December 1997 from the Department of Justice to the UN High Commission for Refugees setting out procedures to be followed when deciding applications for refugee status in the Republic).

He said Mr Zgnat'ev had had the opportunity to make representations at the interview stage and might also appeal to the Independent Appeals Authority. His case was that those two points of contact were sufficient. Mr Zgnat'ev had no right to see an internal Department of Justice communication while the first stage of the application process was being considered, he said.

READ MORE

Mr Justice Finnegan said he was also concerned about the adequacy of the appeals procedures. Mr Callanan said he appreciated the procedure "looks curious at first sight". While the recommendation of the Appeals Authority had to go to the Minister, the decision on whether to refuse or grant refugee status was for the Minister or his authorised officer.

Mr Bill Shipsey SC, for Mr Zgnat'ev, argued that Mr Callanan's concession that the procedure appeared curious was an argument for saying there were substantial grounds for subjecting the procedures adopted in the case to a full judicial review.