According to the summary provided by the EUAA Courts and Tribunals Network:

The applicant left Pakistan in 2011, travelling to the UK, where he stayed until his visa expired. The applicant arrived in Ireland in September 2016 but did not seek international protection until he was arrested by An Garda Síochána for possession of a fake identity card. The applicant claimed to have suffered persecution in Pakistan on the basis of his sexual orientation as a bisexual man.

The Tribunal found the applicant had not provided a reasonable explanation for his delay in seeking protection. The applicant’s claims concerning the alleged relationships and attacks in Pakistan were vague. The documents submitted were unreliable. The Tribunal concluded the applicant was not bisexual and the claimed persecution had not occurred. The applicant claimed that the Tribunal erred by unduly focusing on the delay in seeking protection when determining credibility. The Court referred to the decision of Mac Eochaidh J. in S.Z. v. The Refugee Appeals Tribunal [2013] IEHC 325 (unreported, the High Court, 10 July 2013) and stated:

“The decision in the present case evidence that the Tribunal carried out a careful assessment of the facts which included that the applicant, who travelled from Pakistan to the UK in 2011, did not seek asylum in the first safe country, nor did he make an application for international protection upon arrival in this State in November 2016. Among the facts in the present case, all of which were considered by the Tribunal, was that the applicant first sought international protection in June 2018 and, in the context of considering all facts and circumstances, the Tribunal plainly considered the applicant’s evidence when asked why he did not seek international protection earlier, namely, his response that “he felt safe so didn’t feel the need to apply”. The Tribunal was entitled to consider the foregoing not to be a sufficient, or a reasonable, explanation in relation to the delay in the making of his application. There is no irrationality disclosed in the Tribunal’s decision, in the sense in which that term is understood in judicial review. It was open to the Tribunal, having regard to the evidence, to take the view it did.”

Having examined the decision as a whole, the Court found that any common sense reading of it demonstrated that the delay in seeking protection was not the sole or principal reason for rejecting credibility. The Court found the negative credibility findings made as to the core of the claim were fair, concluding:

“The Tribunal was tasked with analysing the evidence and coming to a view. It did so lawfully. The Tribunal found that the appellant gave a narrative of his past relationships which was not credible. That narrative concerning his past relationships was the basis of his whole claim. The applicant’s general credibility was not established and the answer to all four questions posed by the applicant (and set out at para. 4 of this judgment) is in the negative. Thus, the applicant is not entitled to any relief and his application must be dismissed.”

Certiorari refused.