Facts: The applicant came to Ireland from South Africa and submitted an application for international protection. This application was refused on the basis that she was from South Africa and she could return there safely. The IPO made a preliminary decision on her nationality being South African based on her answers to the questionnaire, which she completed three days after arrival. Only later did she obtain legal advice and following which her legal representative wrote to the IPO to clarify her nationality as Zimbabwean and submitted a birth certificate and passport in this regard.
In her section 35 interview, the applicant repeated that she was born in Zimbabwe and that the questionnaire details were incorrect. She explained that she had used false identity documents to travel to Ireland and when she first applied for international protection, but that they were not her real identity documents. The IPO recommended a refusal of international protection. The IPO’s decision was appealed to the High Court.
Reasoning: In the High Court, it was found that the IPO failed to correctly assess all documentation it had to hand. It held that the IPO incorrectly assumed the passport and birth certificate belonged to a different person due to a different name. When combined with the marriage certificate, which was also submitted, it was held to be clear that they all referred to the same person.
Considering the errors which formed the basis for finding the applicant was South African, along with the timing of the questionnaire, and that the applicant had only received legal advice after she had offered misleading information, the High Court held that the decision that she was not Zimbabwean was reached on an incorrect basis.
Due to the fundamental nature of the decision and its effect of accelerating the processing of her application, it was held that this is a material error and the IPO’s decision needed to be reviewed. Any appeal hearing before the IPAT was considered to become a first instance hearing given the fundamental nature of nationality.
Decision: The case was remitted for reconsideration.
