In the High Court of Justice- Queen’s Bench Division- Administrative Court
This is an application in which the Claimant, a failed asylum seeker, seeks judicial review of the Secretary of State's refusal of a "Fresh Claim" for asylum. Such claims are governed by para 353 of the Immigration Rules which is designed to ensure that failed applicants cannot apply for asylum over and over again without putting forward new material that is significantly different from that already considered.
Permission to apply for judicial review was granted on the 2nd May 2013 by HHJ Thornton QC. Under CPR 54.14 the Defendant had thirty five days from the grant of permission (i.e. until the 7th June 2013) to file her detailed grounds (and written evidence) for contesting the claim. And in granting permission HHJ Thornton QC had so ordered. None the less, the Secretary of State only filed her Detailed Grounds of Defence on the 29th March 2014, about nine months late
Firstly the Defendant argues that because there was new material in relation to one issue that impacted upon credibility that did not mean that the whole assessment of credibility had to be reconsidered. As the Defendant's skeleton argument states: "the short point is this: the absence of the translated documents was but one factor in a multi-factorial assessment by the IJ of the Claimant's case and his credibility".
In the second place, the Defendant argues that even if the new material was taken at its face value (and if it were to be accepted that the Claimant had written the material) fundamental and insuperable difficulties remain. The Defendant is able, for instance, to point to the finding of the immigration judge in regard to the evasiveness of the Claimant under cross examination, inconsistencies in the tale told and the implausibility in the account given of the alleged visit of Iranian security officials (the Etelaat) to his home. These are not undermined by the provision of the translated documents.
The application for judicial review was dismissed.