A.C. v The International Protection Appeals Tribunal & ors

EMNireland

Respondent/Defendant:International Protection Appeals Tribunal, Chief International Protection Officer, Minister for Justice, Ireland, and the Attorney General
Court/s:High Court
Nature of Proceedings:Judicial Review
Judgment Date/s:12 Feb 2024
Judge:Hyland, N.
Category:Refugee Law
Keywords:Asylum, Asylum (Application for), Asylum Seeker (Secondary Movement of), Dublin Regulation, Member State (Remain in the), Transfer Order
Country of Origin:Algeria
URL:https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/f5518126-801f-499a-a303-041dd2a48e4d/2024_IEHC_77.pdf/pdf#view=fitH https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/19909f5d-cb67-4e57-b174-3cb5de60c82d/2024_IEHC_211.pdf/pdf#view=fitH
References:C-359, AHY v Minister for Justice

Facts: The applicant, an Algerian national, applied for international protection in Ireland. It was found that he had previously been in Spain. The International Protection Office (IPO) sent a take back request to Spain under the Dublin III Regulation and Spain accepted responsibility for his application. Upon being informed of this, the applicant’s solicitors made submissions to the Minister for … Read More

Principles:The process for applications made under Article 17(1), Dublin III Regulation was, at the time of this case, unclear and went against the need for a clear and prompt system for Dublin transfers. A decision made under Article 17(1) must issue at the same time as a transfer decision.
Go Back

BS and RS v Refugee Appeals Tribunal

adminLeave a Comment

Respondent/Defendant:Refugee Appeals Tribunal
Court/s:Court of Appeal
Citation/s:[2017] IECA 179
Nature of Proceedings:Judicial Review
Judgment Date/s:14 Jun 2017
Judge:Peart M.
Category:Refugee Law
Keywords:Asylum application (Examination of an), Asylum Seeker (Secondary Movement of), Dublin Regulation, Refugee, Transfer Order
Country of Origin:Albania
URL:https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/ba1a0aa7-2215-4092-bf2c-15b9ab85e89d/2017_IECA_179_2.pdf/pdf#view=fitH

Facts: The applicants were two Albanian asylum seekers who challenged the decision of the Refugee Appeals Tribunal upholding the decision of the Office of the Refugee Applications Commissioner that the United Kingdom was the member state responsible for determining their applications for asylum. The applicants claimed asylum in Ireland on 16 December 2014, and completed their asylum application questionnaires on … Read More

Principles:

The Dublin III Regulation introduced and enhanced the rights of individual asylum seekers in relation to the making of transfer decisions under the Regulation.  However, the concept of an effective remedy under Article 27(1) of the Dublin III Regulation could not be extended to the point that it could be used to challenge a transfer decision on the basis that the Annex V form was incorrectly completed. The provision of the appellants’ fingerprints by the Irish authorities to the UK was in pursuit of the legitimate interest of providing information to ascertain which member state was responsible for their asylum applications, in accordance with section 2A of the Data Protection Act 1988.

Go Back

TM v Refugee Appeals Tribunal

adminLeave a Comment

Respondent/Defendant:Refugee Appeals Tribunal
Court/s:High Court
Citation/s:[2016] IEHC 469
Nature of Proceedings:Judicial Review
Judgment Date/s:29 Jul 2016
Judge:Humphreys R.
Category:Refugee Law
Keywords:Asylum Seeker (Secondary Movement of), Dublin Regulation, Refugee, Transfer Order
Country of Origin:Not stated
URL:http://www.courts.ie/Judgments.nsf/bce24a8184816f1580256ef30048ca50/f96bea1e6365386b8025800b003fc435?OpenDocument
Geographic Focus:Other

Facts: This case concerned transfers pursuant to the Dublin III Regulation, and whether an applicant could challenge a decision to make a transfer order on the basis that (1) the transfer decision was invalid because the information request failed to state the grounds on which it was based contrary to art.34 of the Dublin III regulation; (2) the transfer decision … Read More

Principles:

This decision is significant because it limits an applicant’s right to challenge a transfer order pursuant to the Dublin III Regulation to alleged breaches of the criteria for transfer. All other provisions of the Regulation such as provision of information or time limits for requests are addressed to the member states and an applicant is therefore not entitled to challenge a transfer on those grounds. (This decision is under appeal).

Go Back

SH, IH and SKF v Refugee Appeals Tribunal, Minister for Justice and Law Reform, Attorney General and Ireland

adminLeave a Comment

Respondent/Defendant:Refugee Appeals Tribunal, Minister for Justice and Law Reform, Attorney General and Ireland
Court/s:High Court
Citation/s:[2015] IEHC 98
Nature of Proceedings:Judicial Review
Judgment Date/s:18 Feb 2015
Judge:Stewart J.
Category:Refugee Law
Keywords:Asylum, Asylum Seeker (Secondary Movement of), Persecution, Refugee, Refugee Law
Country of Origin:Pakistan
URL:https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/d5e04c7e-6406-4226-be8a-30f4bff8899f/2015_IEHC_98_1.pdf/pdf#view=fitH
Geographic Focus:Ireland

Facts: The applicants were husband, wife and daughter. They were Pakistani nationals. The marital couple claimed to have married in 1992 and to have been persecuted since then because the husband and wife were Shia and Sunni Muslims respectively, and in marrying him, the wife had rejected an arranged marriage. The husband and wife claimed that each of them has … Read More

Principles:

Where an appellate decision-maker on an international protection is dealing with an appeal on the papers, he or she must give careful consideration to the evidence, including country of origin information and medical evidence.

When deciding a claim, a decision-maker must weigh any explanations given for apparent inconsistencies in their behaviour or their claim and, if rejecting it, give reasons.

When assessing the viability of internal relocation, a decision-maker may occasionally have to identify a specific area of relocation and examine inter alia whether or not it would be reasonable for the applicant to move there to escape persecution or serious harm.

Go Back

AAR v Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform

adminLeave a Comment

Respondent/Defendant:Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform
Court/s:High Court
Citation/s:[2015] IEHC 32
Nature of Proceedings:Judicial Review
Judgment Date/s:22 Jan 2015
Judge:Stewart J.
Category:Deportation
Keywords:Asylum, Asylum Seeker (Secondary Movement of), Deportation, Persecution, Protection (Subsidiary), Refugee, Refugee Law
Country of Origin:Tanzania / Somalia
URL:https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/a50267d5-22d8-4fbd-9609-f85f712dcc2a/2015_IEHC_32_1.pdf/pdf#view=fitH
Geographic Focus:Ireland

Facts: The applicant claimed to be a national of Somalia and a member of the Bajuni ethnic group. He said he lived on the island of Chula with his wife and five children. He sought asylum in Ireland, claiming to have fled persecution in Somalia at the hands of an Islamist militia fighting the then government. His application for asylum … Read More

Principles:

A person who makes an application for subsidiary protection or leave to remain is an active participant in the process and it is incumbent on him or her to make available to the decision-making body the evidence needed to make a decision on it. Such a person cannot validly complain if there has been undue delay on his or her part in submitting such information, leading to its not being before the decision-maker at the time of making the decision.

A decision to deport a non-Irish national who is suffering from a serious mental or physical illness to a country where the facilities for the treatment of that illness are inferior to those available in the State can raise an issue under article 3 ECHR (prohibition of torture or inhuman and degrading treatment), but only in a very exceptional case, where the humanitarian grounds against the removal are compelling.

Go Back

NG (a minor) v Refugee Appeals Tribunal and Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform

adminLeave a Comment

Respondent/Defendant:Refugee Appeals Tribunal and Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform
Court/s:High Court
Citation/s:[2014] IEHC 428
Nature of Proceedings:Judicial Review
Judgment Date/s:05 Sep 2014
Judge:McDermott J.
Category:Refugee Law
Keywords:Asylum, Asylum Seeker (Secondary Movement of), Child, Minor, Persecution, Refugee, Refugee Law
Country of Origin:Ukraine
URL:https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/7d09fe7c-06cc-4dc7-9c2d-2e72c86f93ab/2014_IEHC_428_1.pdf/pdf#view=fitH
Geographic Focus:Ireland

Facts: The applicant was the Irish-born daughter of two Ukrainian nationals who had arrived in Ireland in 2000 and 2001 and unsuccessfully claimed asylum. They had alleged that they were at risk of persecution in Ukraine from corrupt officials. It was considered that she was fleeing prosecution rather than persecution and that state protection was available to them. They applied … Read More

Principles:

A child of parents whose application for asylum has failed cannot, ordinarily, claim to have any fear of returning to its country of origin if its claim is based on theirs, particularly if theirs has failed for want of credibility.

Misstatement of fact by a decision-making body will not result in its decision being quashed unless it is material to it.

Go Back

JMO v Refugee Applications Commissioner and the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform

adminLeave a Comment

Respondent/Defendant:Refugee Applications Commissioner and the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform
Court/s:High Court
Citation/s:[2014] IEHC 467
Nature of Proceedings:Judicial Review
Judgment Date/s:22 Aug 2014
Judge:McDermott J.
Category:Refugee Law
Keywords:Asylum, Asylum Seeker (Secondary Movement of), Country of Origin Information, Dublin Regulation, Family Member, Persecution, Refugee, Transfer Order
Country of Origin:Russia
URL:https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/a6c83799-e4f3-4e11-a887-3fe619ed2941/2014_IEHC_467_1.pdf/pdf#view=fitH
Geographic Focus:Ireland

Facts: The applicant was a Russian national, who claimed to be of Chechen ethnicity. He applied for asylum in the State on that account and gave a history which was untrue in that he failed to disclose he had applied for asylum in Slovakia. This was brought to his attention by the Refugee Applications Commissioner and he made representations as … Read More

Principles:

A rebuttable presumption exists that the treatment of asylum seekers in all EU Member States complies with the requirements of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, the Geneva Convention on the Status of Refugees and the European Convention on Human Rights. Not every infringement of relevant Directives will preclude the transfer of an applicant under the Dublin Regulation. In order to rebut the presumption, cogent evidence must be shown of a “real risk” of being subject to a breach of rights if transferred to a receiving country under the Dublin Regulation. 

Go Back

Joined cases C-411/10 NS and C-493/10 ME

adminLeave a Comment

Respondent/Defendant:Secretary of State for the Home Department et al
Court/s:ECJ
Citation/s:[2011] ECR I-0000
Judgment Date/s:21 Dec 2011
Judge:Grand Chamber of the Court of Justice of the European Union
Category:Refugee Law
Keywords:Asylum, Asylum (Application for), Asylum Seeker (Secondary Movement of), Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Country of Origin (Safe), Dublin Regulation, Refugee, Transfer Order
URL:http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=117187&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=216473
Geographic Focus:Europe

In Case C-411/10 N.S., the applicant, an Afghan national, came to the UK after travelling through, inter alia, Greece. He did not apply for asylum in Greece, and he claimed that the Greek authorities detained him, gave him an order to leave Greece, and subsequently arrested him and expelled him to Turkey, from where he travelled to the UK. The … Read More

Principles:

A Member State exercising its discretionary power under Article 3(2) of the Dublin Regulation must be considered as implementing EU law within the meaning of Article 6 TEU and Article 51(1) of the Charter. Presumptions that Member States comply with the Charter, Geneva Convention, and ECHR must be regarded as rebuttable. Member State may not transfer an asylum seeker under the Dublin Regulation where it cannot be unaware that systematic deficiencies in the asylum procedure and reception conditions in a receiving Member State amount to substantial grounds for believing that the asylum seeker would face a real risk of being subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment under Article 4 of the Charter.

Subject to Article 3(2) of the Dublin Regulation, where a Member State finds that it is impossible to transfer an applicant to another Member State under the Dublin Regulation, the Member State must continue to examine the criteria in Chapter III of the Regulation in order to establish whether one of the following criteria enables another Member State to be identified as responsible for the examination of the asylum application.

The Member State in which an applicant is present must ensure that it does not worsen a situation where an applicant’s fundamental rights have been infringed by using a procedure for determining the Member State responsible which takes an unreasonable length of time. If necessary, the Member State where the applicant is present must examine the application under Article 3(2) of the Regulation. Information such as that cited by the EctHR, re relevant risks to which asylum seekers would be exposed, enables Member States to assess the functioning of the Member States’ asylum systems, making it possible to evaluate risks.

Go Back