The High Court in Northern Ireland has refused leave (known as permission in England and Wales) for a judicial review challenging the pause on Syrian asylum claims, saying that the grounds were “unarguable”. The case is JR332, Re Application for Judicial Review [2025] NIKB 33.

The applicant is a Syrian national who claimed asylum in Northern Ireland on arrival on 19 December 2023. His substantive asylum interview took place on 12 December 2024, a few days after the Home Secretary announced a pause on the processing of all Syrian asylum claims. The applicant states that the pause has had a negative impact on his mental health.

The judicial review was brought on the following grounds:

• Ultra vires – the SSHD had no legal power to pause or stay all Syrian asylum claims;
• Error of law – the decision is unlawful as being in breach of the relevant provisions of the Windsor Framework (‘WF’) and the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018;
• Human rights – the decision amounts to a disproportionate interference with the applicant’s right to respect for private life under article 8 ECHR, contrary to section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998; and
• Irrationality – the decision is otherwise irrational.

All the grounds were dismissed as unarguable and so leave (permission) was refused.

In the decision, the court referred to UNHCR’s statement of 10 December 2024 which said that “In light of the uncertain and highly fluid situation the suspension of processing of asylum applications from Syrians is acceptable as long as people can apply for asylum and are able to lodge asylum applications.”

I think it will be difficult to succeed in these cases until UNHCR revises its position, but there will almost certainly be individual cases with stronger facts and evidence, and possibly different grounds, than this case which can succeed. And as I have said before, the position on settlement applications is also different, with probably stronger merits for a challenge.