The Refugee Applications Commissioner initially assessed the applicant to be a minor. The Health Service Executive assigned a project worker to the applicant and subsequently requested that the Commissioner carry out another age assessment. The Commissioner carried out a second test and determined that the applicant was over 18. The applicant challenged the second age assessment on the ground that it was in breach of fair procedures and also challenged the subsequent refugee status determinations on the ground that they were materially affected by the allegedly unsound age assessment test.
In granting leave, the Court held that it was arguable that the correct procedures, as outlined in A.M. v Refugee Applications Commissioner were not applied in the second age assessment and that it was arguable that the Commissioner and Tribunal’s considerations were materially affected by the second age assessment, particularly with regard to credibility.
