A Russian national has brought a High Court application for leave to challenge the decision to refuse him refugee status here. The man claims he was deemed a traitor by the Russian authorities after he handed over his property to Chechen rebels.
The application is the first to be heard under the terms of the controversial Illegal Immigrants (Trafficking) Act, 2000.
Mr Bill Shipsey SC, for Mr Valeri Zgnat'ev (52), with an address at Phibsborough, Dublin, yesterday applied for leave to challenge the Minister for Justice's decision, upheld by the Independent Appeals Authority, to refuse his client refugee status.
Mr Justice Finnegan heard that Mr Zgnat'ev is Jewish, a divorced father of two and a mechanical engineer who served in the Soviet army during periods from 1968 to 1992. He was sent to rebuild an oil pipeline in Chechnya in 1996 and claims he was captured by rebels that November and held in the mountains for a year until he negotiated his release by handing over all his property.
He says he later learned the Russian authorities had brought criminal charges against him alleging he had surrendered his weapons to the rebels, betrayed his oath, refused to use arms and/or disobeyed the order.
He fled to South Africa and sought asylum but was told to apply to the South African embassy in Russia. He says returning to Russia was not an option as he feared persecution.
He then went to Belfast and from there to Dublin where he applied for refugee status in October last year.
Mr Zgnat'ev argues that he is a refugee as defined in the United Nations Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, 1951, as amended by the Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees, 1967 (the Geneva Convention), and Section 2 of the Refugee Act, 1996.
He says he fears persecution if returned to Russia because of his Jewish background, his military service and his past political views arising from his Communist Party membership from 1976 to 1989.
In June his application for asylum was deemed "manifestly unfounded" and his application was determined under an accelerated procedure.
Mr Shipsey said he was contending that the decision that his client's application was "manifestly unfounded" was manifestly irrational and unreasonable. Its effect was that the application was dealt with under an accelerated procedure detailed in the Hope Hanlan letter (a letter of December 1997 from the Minister for Justice to Ms Hope Hanlan, the Representative of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees, setting out procedures by the Republic in dealing with applications for refugee status).
When an application is found manifestly unfounded, the procedures in the Hope Hanlan letter provide that the case may be terminated and the application may be refused. The UNHCR has indicated to the asylum appeals unit of the Department of Justice that the accelerated procedure should be used only in "clearly fraudulent" cases.
Mr Shipsey said Mr Zgnat'ev had made out a prima facie case for refugee status and deciding his application was manifestly unfounded was irrational and unreasonable, in breach of the Irish Constitution and international conventions.
As a result, the application was dealt with under the accelerated procedure and not the substantive procedures for dealing with asylum applications, and Mr Zgnat'ev's opportunities to fully present his case and/or appeal the decisions taken regarding that case were profoundly restricted.
Under the accelerated procedure, Mr Zgnat'ev had just two weeks from the date of notification of the decision (September 5th, 2000) to refuse him refugee status to take a judicial review challenge to that refusal. Because of language and other difficulties, including securing legal aid, he did not meet that time limit and has applied to the court for an extension of time.
Mr Zgnat'ev is arguing that the procedures in the Hope Hanlan letter do not provide asylum-seekers with an opportunity for an oral hearing of their appeals.
He also contends that he was never informed that a questionnaire he was asked to fill in when he applied for refugee status would be used to determine whether his application was manifestly unfounded. He had filled it in without legal advice. He claims he believed his application was being dealt with in the normal way and that substantive consideration would be given to it.
The hearing continues today.
