Tibetan monk left in limbo as Irish State refuses appeal extension
High Court reporters
A Tibetan Buddhist monk seeking asylum here has been left "in limbo" by the Irish State, which is refusing to give him an extension of time to lodge an appeal against their rejection of his claim for asylum, the High Court has been told.
The man, who cannot be named, claims, through legal papers, that he left China for "political reasons".
He claims he will be "persecuted and tortured" should he be sent to China, as he is a symbol of Tibetan culture.
The monk, who attends the Four Courts in full religious robes, has said he is a symbol of "the Tibetan root of religion and culture".
He claims that he was delayed in filing an appeal against the State's refusal to grant asylum due to extraordinary circumstances when the home of one of his legal team in Sudan was bombed.
At the High Court on Friday, Anthony Hanrahan SC, for the man, told the court that the monk was "in limbo" due to the lack of progress in the case. Mr Hanrahan said there was no deportation order in place and that his client was surviving on €100 a week.
Counsel said the case should not be linked to pending judgments in other similar test cases and that progress should be made due to the "unusual and precarious" situation the monk found himself in.
Mr Justice Anthony Barr adjourned the matter to next week for it to come before Ms Justice Sara Phelan, who had previously dealt with the case.
In papers submitted by his legal team - Mr Hanrahan with Eoin Heffernan BL - the monk claims he left Tibet in April 2016 and went to Nepal until September 2024 before arriving in Ireland in October 2024, when he applied for international protection.
In January of this year, his application for asylum was rejected and his intent was to appeal that decision to an appeals tribunal, he claims.
The man is taking the action against the International Protection Appeals Tribunal (IPAT) and the Minister for Justice.
In April, he was granted leave by the High Court to challenge IPAT's rejection of his application, which was refused under time limit constraints.
The man submits that a Sudanese legal secretary of his legal team was preparing a notice of appeal, but received notification that her family home in Sudan had been destroyed by an airstrike and that a close family friend had been killed in the attack.
He submits that the woman was left in a state of shock and distress by the news and mistakenly believed she had submitted the notice of appeal in time.
This, he submits, amounts to extraordinary circumstances over which IPAT could use its power of discretion.
In March, IPAT refused an extension of time to file a challenge to deny him asylum.
IPAT was asked to reconsider the application for the extension of time, but told the monk’s solicitors that the application could not be reconsidered and that "the Tribunal does not have the jurisdiction to accept an appeal which it has already rejected”.
