LK v International Protection Appeals Tribunal & ors

EMNireland

Respondent/Defendant:LK
Judgment Date/s:09 Oct 2024
Judge:Dunne, Charleton, Woulfe S., Hogan, G., Murray
Category:Refugee Law
Keywords:Asylum, Asylum (Application for), Asylum Applicant (Examination of an), Employment, Labour market access, Protection (International), Reception Conditions
Country of Origin:Georgia
URL:https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/aaa6ed66-ae2f-4618-930a-ad4dcad8bb11/2024_IESC_42_.pdf/pdf#view=fitH

Facts: LK applied for international protection in Ireland in September 2019. A preliminary interview was scheduled two weeks after he applied for international protection, but he did not receive written notification of this date and was never contacted personally. Through his social worker, an interview was arranged for LK for 12 December 2019. He received a questionnaire, for which he … Read More

Principles:The insertion of delay “attributed in part” as a condition for refusing to grant a labour market access permission does not feature in the Directive. It is not acte clair that the condition is in compliance with EU law and therefore a preliminary reference was sent to the Court of Justice of the European Union.
Go Back

Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission v Minister for Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth & anor

EMNireland

Respondent/Defendant:The Minister for Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth, Ireland and the Attorney General
Court/s:High Court
Citation/s:[2024] IEHC 493
Nature of Proceedings:Judicial review (section 41, Irish Human Rights and Equality Act 2014)
Judgment Date/s:01 Aug 2024
Judge:O’Donnell, B
Category:Refugee Law
Keywords:Accommodation Centre, Asylum, Asylum (Application for), Asylum Applicant (Secondary Movement of), Homelessness, Reception Conditions, Reception Conditions (Material), Vulnerable person
URL:https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/173c9396-0529-4a34-9281-fd4441e5c1e6/2024_IEHC_493.pdf/pdf#view=fitH
References:S.Y. v Minister for Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth & ors [2023] IEHC 187

Facts: This case concerned difficulties faced by the State in providing accommodation to certain single male applicants for international protection in the period between late 2023 and May 2024. As the State was unable to provide accommodation, it sought to provide for the basic needs of applicants through an increased daily expenses allowance of 75 euros, and through the provision … Read More

Principles:Applicants for international protection have a well-established fundamental right to human dignity, including by being provided with an adequate standard of living that guarantees their subsistence and protects their physical and mental health where they do not have sufficient means to provide for themselves. A failure to provide for the basic needs of applicants was found to amount to a breach of their right to human dignity.
Go Back

S.A. (Zimbabwe and South Africa) v the Chief International Protection Officer & ors

EMNireland

Respondent/Defendant:The Chief International Protection Officer, the Minister for Justice and the International Protection Appeals Tribunal
Court/s:High Court
Citation/s:[2024] IEHC 477
Judgment Date/s:04 Jul 2024
Judge:Gearty, M.
Category:Refugee Law
Keywords:Asylum, Asylum (Application for), Country of Birth, Country of Nationality, Country of Origin, Country of Origin (Safe), Protection (Application for International), Protection (International), Representative
Country of Origin:Zimbabwe, South Africa
URL:https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/13442135-40a9-4b2f-8fd9-5282947d2db3/2024_IEHC_477.pdf/pdf#view=fitH

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 … Read More

Principles:Where an applicant for international protection has two sets of identity paper it is incumbent on the decision maker to assess the documents and to consider the explanation given by the applicant and give an accurate recitation of the underlying facts and documents.
Go Back

J.R. (Algeria) v International Protection Appeals Tribunal and the Minister for Justice

EMNireland

Respondent/Defendant:The International Protection Appeals Tribunal and the Minister for Justice
Court/s:High Court
Citation/s:[2024] IEHC 296
Nature of Proceedings:Judicial review
Judgment Date/s:23 Apr 2024
Judge:Gearty M.
Category:Refugee Law
Keywords:Asylum, Country of Origin, Credibility, Protection (Application for International)
Country of Origin:Algeria
URL:https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/b38b6ed8-183e-45cf-8c5b-ee65b047562c/2024_IEHC_296.pdf/pdf#view=fitH
References:M.Y. v. IPAT [2022] IEHC 345, I.L. v. IPAT [2021] IEHC 106

Facts: The applicant was an Algerian national for international protection. He claimed that his uncle had threated to kill him over a family dispute about property and that, despite reporting it to the police, no action was taken. He submitted that his uncle held a powerful position in a terrorist organisation and had also threatened and attacked his parents. Furthermore, … Read More

Principles:Decisions on the credibility of applications for international protection must provide clear reasons for the acceptance or refusal of the case.
Go Back

A v Minister for Justice, Ireland and the Attorney General; B v International Protection Appeals Tribunal, Minister for Justice and Equality, Ireland, and the Attorney General

EMNireland


A v Minister for Justice, Ireland & anor; B v International Protection Appeals Tribunal & ors
Respondent/Defendant:Minister for Justice, the Attorney General, the International Appeals Tribunal
Court/s:High Court
Nature of Proceedings:Judicial Review
Judgment Date/s:22 Mar 2024
Judge:Phelan, S.
Keywords:Asylum, Asylum Applicant, Asylum Applicant (Secondary Movement of), Dublin Regulation, Return, Return Decision, Third Country, Third Country (Safe), Transfer Order
URL:https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/8f8d74f5-2195-459e-af49-2269c01f071f/2024_IEHC_183.pdf/pdf#view=fitH

Facts: This case concerns the lawfulness of the designation of the United Kingdom as a safe third country under section 72A of the International Protection Act 2015. The two applicants, A and B, are Iraqi and Nigerian and separately applied for international protection in Ireland. A biometric data request was sent to the UK under the 2014 UK/Ireland Memorandum of … Read More

Principles:The designation of a safe third country in the international protection system must be compliant with EU law, including the Asylum Procedures Directive 2013/32/EU. This is necessary because of the operation of the Dublin III Regulation, in which Ireland participates, and for the functioning of the Common European Asylum System.
Go Back

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

RG v International Protection Appeals Tribunal & ors

EMNireland


RG v International Protection Appeals Tribunal & ors
Respondent/Defendant:International Protection Appeals Tribunal, Chief International Protection Officer, Minister for Justice, Ireland, and Attorney General
Court/s:High Court
Judgment Date/s:19 Dec 2023
Judge:Hyland N.
Category:Asylum
Keywords:Asylum, Dublin Regulation, Transfer Order
Country of Origin:Georgia
URL:https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/8d2a1d66-9f1e-4000-94a0-51bedbd0e511/2023_IEHC_742.pdf/pdf#view=fitH
Geographic Focus:Ireland

Facts: RG was a Georgian man who sought international protection in Ireland. It was found that he had previously applied for international protection in France. A transfer decision was issued under the Dublin III Regulation 604/2013. He applied to the High Court seeking an injunction restraining his transfer or to stay on the transfer decision, pending ongoing judicial review proceedings. … Read More

Principles:Articles 27 and 29 of the Dublin III Regulation and the time limits set therein are a self-contained regime. While the first remedy must provide suspensive effect, further remedies, such as judicial review, do not.
Go Back

S.A and R.J v Minister of Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth, Ireland and the Attorney General

EMNireland


S.A and R.J v Minister of Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth, Ireland and the Attorney General
Respondent/Defendant:Minister of Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth, Ireland and the Attorney General
Court/s:High Court
Nature of Proceedings:Judicial Review
Judgment Date/s:14 Dec 2023
Judge:Ferriter C
Category:Asylum
Keywords:Asylum, Reception Conditions, Reception Conditions (Material)
Country of Origin:Afghanistan, India
URL:https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/1ae1aec7-8040-4e6f-a0a6-97ea9e296855/2023_IEHC_717.pdf/pdf#view=fitH

Facts: SA and RJ sought international protection in Ireland in mid-February and mid-March 2023. On lodging their applications, they were not provided with accommodation and they each spent over two months homeless. They were provided with vouchers and charities provided food and access to sanitary facilities. At the end of March, the Daily Expenses Allowance (€38.80 for an adult) was … Read More

Principles:The applicability, parameters and scope of the defence of force majeure to a claim for Frankovich damages in the context of the Reception Conditions Directive and the provision of accommodation to applicants is unclear under EU law and therefore questions were referred to the CJEU.
Go Back

M.H. v International Protection Appeals Tribunal and the Minister for Justice and Equality

EMNireland

Respondent/Defendant:International Protection Appeals Tribunal, Minister for Justice and Equality
Court/s:High Court
Citation/s:[2023] IEHC 372
Nature of Proceedings:Appeal (Judicial Review)
Judgment Date/s:28 Jun 2023
Judge:Phelan S.
Keywords:Asylum, Asylum application (Examination of an), Country of Origin, Country of Origin Information, Credibility, European Asylum Support Office (EASO), Evidence, Persecution
Country of Origin:Pakistan (Occupied Azad Kashmir)
URL:https://courts.ie/view/judgments/bc91937d-81fc-4abe-9312-2356dd985614/93b49e82-f206-411e-bd67-1165e9194eb1/2023_IEHC_372.pdf/pdf

Facts: The applicant was a Pakistani national who identified as Kashmiri. The applicant and his family were activists with the Jammu Kashmir Liberation Front (JKLF). He fled Kashmir and applied for international protection in Ireland, initially under the Refugee Act 1996 and then under the International Protection Act 2015. His application for refugee status was refused under the Refugee Act … Read More

Principles:Documentation submitted to support an international protection application must be assessed regardless of the credibility findings on an application. Less weight may be given to these documents in light of a lack of credibility but the documents must be assessed.
Go Back

L.K. -v- International Protection Appeals Tribunal & Ors

EMNireland


L.K. -v- International Protection Appeals Tribunal & Ors
Respondent/Defendant:International Protection Appeals Tribunal, The Minister for Justice, Ireland and the Attorney General
Court/s:High Court
Citation/s:[2022] IEHC 441
Nature of Proceedings:Judicial Review
Judgment Date/s:26 Apr 2023
Judge:Heslin M., Ferriter C.
Category:Refugee Law
Keywords:Asylum, Asylum (Application for), Asylum Applicant, Labour market access, Protection (Application for International), Protection (International), Reception Conditions
Country of Origin:Georgia
URL:https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/153ff350-64ad-40e3-885f-c3783365ca98/2022_IEHC_441.pdf/pdf#view=fitH https://courts.ie/view/judgments/a8214e9c-ffea-41bc-9246-587b20791b2d/5b4865e6-b107-4c5d-aa1b-f1ffcacf72b4/2023_IEHC_210.pdf/pdf

Facts: The case concerned a Georgian national who applied for international protection at the IPO in September 2019. He completed the section 13 process, but not the section 15 process required to complete the lodging of his application. This was because he required a Georgian interpreter, and he was informed that he would be contacted when this could be arranged. … Read More

Principles:The introduction of delay attributable ‘in part’ to an applicant in regulation 11(4)(b) of the European Communities (Reception Conditions) Regulations 2018 as a reason for refusing labour market access is not foreseen in the recast Reception Conditions Directive. It dilutes the provision for labour market access and incorrectly transposes EU law.
Go Back

H.A. v Minister for Justice

EMNireland


H.A. v Minister for Justice
Respondent/Defendant:H.A.
Court/s:Court of Appeal
Citation/s:[2022] IECA 166
Nature of Proceedings:Judicial Review
Judgment Date/s:22 Jul 2022
Judge: Donnelly A
Category:Asylum, Family Reunification, Refugee Law
Keywords:Asylum, Child, Family Reunification, Family Unity (Right to), Minor
Country of Origin:Somalia
URL:https://courts.ie/acc/alfresco/bc913491-38f9-446a-ba0f-6324d8b0c8ad/2022_IECA_166.pdf/pdf#view=fitH

 Facts: The respondent was a national of Somalia who was granted refugee status in Ireland. She applied for family reunification with her niece and nephew under section 56 of the International Protection Act 2015. Her niece and nephew are orphans and she had accepted responsibility for them. A ‘Declaration of Responsibility’ from Somalia was submitted in this regard.  The application … Read More

Principles:In a decision on a family reunification application, the Minister must consider evidence submitted as regards the relationship of a parent to the child, in this case, a Declaration of Responsibility. This should be referenced in the decision issued by the decision maker.
Go Back

A & B v International Protection Appeals Tribunal & ors

admin


A & B v International Protection Appeals Tribunal & ors
Respondent/Defendant:The International Protection Appeals Tribunal, The Minister for Justice and Equality, Ireland and the Attorney General
Court/s:Supreme Court
Citation/s:[2022] IESC 35
Nature of Proceedings:Judicial Review /Appeal
Judgment Date/s:19 Jul 2022
Judge:MacMenamin J.
Category:Refugee Law
Keywords:Appeal, Asylum, Asylum Applicant, Deportation Order, Final Decision
Country of Origin:Georgia, Brazil
URL:https://courts.ie/view/judgments/f081dc1c-a3d2-4466-98aa-d2b12e68774a/0df6da0b-dc38-4b7b-9784-c3e79fe99faf/2022_IESC_35_McMenamin%20J.pdf/pdf

Facts: Mr. A, from Georgia, and Ms. B, from Brazil, both separately applied for international protection in Ireland. It was recommended that their applications be refused under section 39(3)(b) of the International Protection Act 2015 and reports were issued to the Minister under section 40 of the 2015 Act recommending the refusal of their applications. Neither appellant brought an appeal … Read More

Principles:The IPAT acted ultra vires in not allowing persons who had received a negative first instance decision to apply for an extension of time to appeal. Persons who are no longer considered applicants may apply to extend the time to appeal a decision issued under section 39 of the International Protection Act 2015.
Go Back

Landsberg and Breetzke v Road Safety Authority, the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport, and the Attorney General Ireland

adminLeave a Comment


Landsberg and Breetzke v the Road Safety Authority and others
Respondent/Defendant:Road Safety Authority, the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport, Ireland and the Attorney General .
Court/s:High Court
Citation/s:[2021] IEHC 748
Nature of Proceedings:Judicial review
Judgment Date/s:05 Nov 2021
Judge:Heslin M
Category:International protection
Keywords:Asylum, Employment, Reception Conditions, Usual Residence
Country of Origin:South Africa
URL:https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/95f13571-e20a-499b-8914-a7bbe1af4081/2021_IEHC_748.pdf/pdf#view=fitH

Facts: The applicants were two South African nationals who had applied for international protection in Ireland. They applied to the National Driving Licence Service (NDLS) to exchange their South African driving licences for Irish driving licences. The applicants averred that they required driving licences to access the labour market and bring their child to school. Regulation 12 of the Road … Read More

Principles:Normal residence for the purposes of the Road Traffic (Licencing of Drivers) Regulations 2006 (SI No. 537/2006), as amended, can be understood to include the residency of international protection applicants in the State.
Go Back

MAH v Minister for Justice

adminLeave a Comment

Respondent/Defendant:Minister for Justice
Court/s:High Court
Citation/s:[2021] IEHC 302
Nature of Proceedings:Judicial Review
Judgment Date/s:30 Apr 2021
Judge:Burns T
Category:Deportation
Keywords:Asylum, Country of Origin Information, Deportation Order, European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), Refoulement (Non-), Refugee
Country of Origin:Somalia
URL:https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/62760bea-78ce-44be-a54a-e592ecbb8bd0/2020_IEHC_302.pdf/pdf#view=fitH

Facts: The applicant was a Somali national who had studied medicine in Ukraine. Upon completion of her studies, she returned to Somalia where she worked as a junior doctor. During this time, the applicant was subjected to threats from a fundamentalist group and so she fled to Ukraine through renewing her student visa. Upon the expiry of her student visa, … Read More

Principles:In making a deportation order, the Minister for Justice was obliged to consider whether country of origin information was capable of rebutting of the presumption that another Member State upholds fundamental rights. The Minister for Justice was not entitled to dismiss an applicant’ s employment prospects on the basis that she did not hold a work permit or immigration permission.
Go Back

KS and MHK v International Protection Appeals Tribunal, the Minister for Justice and Equality and the Advocate General and RAT and DS v Minister for Justice and Equality (Joined Cases C-322/19 and C-385/19)

emnadminLeave a Comment


KS and others v International Protection Appeals Tribunal and Minister for Justice and Equality and others
Respondent/Defendant:Minister for Justice and Equality, Advocate General and the International Protection Appeals Tribunal
Court/s:Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU)
Citation/s:ECLI:EU:C:2021:11
Nature of Proceedings:Preliminary Reference
Judgment Date/s:14 Jan 2021
Judge:Piçarra N (Rapporteur)
Category:Refugee Law
Keywords:Asylum, Common European Asylum System (CEAS), Dublin Regulation, Employment, Reception Conditions, Refugee Law
Country of Origin:Pakistan, Bangladesh, Iraq
URL:http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=236427&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=req&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=1675215

Facts: KS, MHK, RAT and DS applied for international protection in Ireland between 2015 and 2018. They were subsequently issued with transfer decisions to other Member States pursuant to the Dublin III Regulation 604/2013, which they appealed. In the interim, all four applicants had been refused permission to access the labour market due to the exclusion of persons in Dublin … Read More

Principles:-          Where a national court is interpreting provisions of the recast Reception Conditions Directive, account must be taken of the recast Asylum Procedures Directive, even where the Member State has not opted into that legislation.
Go Back

AAL v International Protection Appeals Tribunal, Minister for Justice and Equality, Ireland and the Attorney General

emnadminLeave a Comment

Respondent/Defendant:International Protection Appeals Tribunal, Minister for Justice and Equality, Ireland and the Attorney General
Court/s:High Court
Citation/s:[2018] IEHC 792
Nature of Proceedings:Appeal/Judicial Review
Judgment Date/s:21 Dec 2018
Judge:Humphreys R
Category:Refugee Law
Keywords:Asylum, Burden of Proof, Protection, Protection (Application for International)
Country of Origin:Nigeria
URL:https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/306185a7-9e51-4534-aff9-c508ee2d63e3/2018_IEHC_792_1.pdf/pdf#view=fitH

Facts: The applicant was a Nigerian national who applied for asylum in the State. He claimed that his mother was a Christian and his father a Muslim, and that his family was attacked after his father converted to Christianity and his mother was killed. His application for asylum was deemed withdrawn after the applicant left direct provision accommodation without a … Read More

Principles:Under article 4(1) of the Qualification Directive it is generally for the applicant to submit all elements needed to substantiate the application. It is the duty of a Member State to cooperate with the applicant at the stage of determining the relevant elements of the application. This involves cooperation with the applicant as opposed to a fully inquisitorial procedure. It also involves identifying the elements of the application actually made, not an application that the applicant could have made but did not. Insofar as information regarding the country situation is concerned, Member States have an investigative burden with regard to the information listed in art.4(3) of the Qualification Directive. A Member State may also be better placed than an applicant to gain access to certain types of documents, which is more likely to arise in relation to country documentation. State protection bodies are not in a position to obtain documents personal to an applicant because attempting to do so identifies the applicant to third parties as a protection seeker. Insofar as factors personal to the applicant are concerned, the primary responsibility to describe the facts and events which fall into his or her personal sphere is that of the applicant. If the applicant fails to assemble the elements of his or her claim that are personal to him or her, the State has only a limited role in supplying the deficit, as it is unlikely to be in a better position to do so than the applicant.
Go Back

IG v Refugee Applications Commissioner

emnadmin

Respondent/Defendant:Refugee Applications Commissioner
Court/s:Supreme Court
Citation/s:[2018] IESC 25
Nature of Proceedings:Appeal/Judicial Review
Judgment Date/s:16 May 2018
Judge:Dunne E; O’Donnell D
Category:Refugee Law
Keywords:Asylum, Asylum application (Examination of an)
Country of Origin:Albania
URL:http://courts.ie/Judgments.nsf/0/52191E5580C223FA802582AA00387114

Facts: The applicants were an Albanian mother and her two daughters whose applications for asylum were refused by the Refugee Applications Commissioner. They subsequently brought judicial review proceedings challenging the manner in which their applications had been processed by the Refugee Applications Commissioner, arising from the fact that the Commissioner had established a “case processing panel of legal graduates” to … Read More

Principles:There were substantial grounds for the purposes of leave to seek judicial review as to whether the Refugee Applications Commissioner was lawfully entitled to delegate the performance of certain functions to independent contractors on a case processing panel.
Go Back

Agha v Minister for Social Protection; Osinuga v Minister for Social Protection

adminLeave a Comment

Respondent/Defendant:Minister for Social Protection
Court/s:Court of Appeal
Citation/s:[2018] IECA 155
Nature of Proceedings:Appeal
Judgment Date/s:06 May 2018
Judge:Hogan G.
Category:Citizenship, Refugee Law
Keywords:Asylum, Child, Citizenship, Citizenship (Acquisition of), Discrimination (Indirect), Equal Treatment (Principle of), Immigration, Migrant (Irregular), Refugee, Refugee Law
Country of Origin:Afghanistan, Nigeria, Ireland
URL:https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/1117d422-fc42-41fe-8c30-88f03e2d04a5/2018_IECA_155_1.pdf/pdf#view=fitH
Geographic Focus:Other

xAgha v Minister for Social Protection; Osinuga v Minister for Social Protection Agha; Osinuga Minister for Social Protection Facts: The appellants were two sets of parents who were refused payment of child benefit due to their immigration status. In the Agha case, the parents were Afghan nationals who arrived in Ireland in 2008. They lived in direct provision and had … Read More

Principles:

There was no objective justification for the statutory exclusion of an Irish citizen resident in the State from eligibility for child benefit prior to the grant of status to her mother in January 2016. Accordingly, this statutory exclusion constituted a breach of the equality provisions of Article 40.1 of the Constitution.

The statutory requirement that a qualifying parent for the purposes of social welfare payments must also have a legal entitlement to reside in the State was not unconstitutional. The key issue was that of citizenship. The Oireachtas was entitled to attach conditions to the eligibility for social welfare of a non-national whose entitlement to reside in the State was contingent on a statutory entitlement. However, social welfare was payable in respect of a person from the date of the grant of refugee status in accordance with Article 28 of the Qualification Directive and insofar as Irish law precluded this payment based on the status of the child’s parents, this was incompatible with EU law.

Go Back

HN v International Protection Appeals Tribunal, Minister for Justice and Equality, Ireland and the Attorney General

emnadmin

Respondent/Defendant:International Protection Appeals Tribunal, Minister for Justice and Equality, Ireland and the Attorney General
Court/s:Court of Appeal
Citation/s:[2018] IECA 102
Nature of Proceedings:Appeal/Judicial Review
Judgment Date/s:19 Apr 2018
Judge:Hogan G.
Category:Refugee Law
Keywords:Asylum, Asylum application (Examination of an), Dublin Regulation
Country of Origin:Afghanistan
URL:https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/73a849bf-89a5-4d52-bcc1-466e2b4344f5/2018_IECA_102_1.pdf/pdf#view=fitH

Facts: The applicant was an Afghan national who applied for asylum in the State. A Eurodac search subsequently revealed that he had previously applied for asylum in the United Kingdom and the Refugee Applications Commissioner subsequently made a decision to transfer the applicant to the United Kingdom pursuant to the Dublin III Regulation. The applicant appealed this decision to the … Read More

Principles:There were arguable grounds that the International Protection Appeals Tribunal erred in law by ruling that it had no jurisdiction to exercise the jurisdiction conferred by Article 17(1) of the Dublin III Regulation and by failing to consider the consequences for the applicant’s mental health of physically transporting him from Ireland to the United Kingdom and all the significant and permanent consequences that might arise from such a transfer.
Go Back

MIF v International Protection Appeals Tribunal, Minister for Justice and Equality, Ireland and the Attorney General

emnadminLeave a Comment

Respondent/Defendant:International Protection Appeals Tribunal, Minister for Justice and Equality, Ireland and the Attorney General
Court/s:Court of Appeal
Nature of Proceedings:Appeal/Judicial Review
Judgment Date/s:19 Feb 2018
Judge:Hogan G.
Category:Refugee Law
Keywords:Asylum, Asylum Applicant (Examination of an), Asylum Applicant (Secondary Movement of), Asylum shopping, Dublin Regulation, Geneva Convention and Protocol
Country of Origin:Pakistan
URL:https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/1fdfdf7c-9a22-4e8e-8373-93b3d793d31e/2018_IECA_36_1.pdf/pdf#view=fitH

Facts: The applicant was a Pakistani national who applied for asylum in the State. A Eurodac search subsequently revealed that he had previously resided in the United Kingdom and the Refugee Applications Commissioner subsequently made a decision to transfer the applicant to the United Kingdom pursuant to the Dublin III Regulation. The applicant appealed this decision to the International Protection … Read More

Principles:Article 31 of the Refugee Convention did not confer an open-ended choice on asylum seekers as to the country where they would submit their application for asylum. The Dublin III Regulation provides for a system of jurisdiction allocation between Member States which is designed to avoid forum shopping and potentially abusive applications in a multiplicity of States, as expressly contemplated by Article 78(2)(e) of the TFEU. It could not be said that the Dublin Regulation, which was expressly authorised by the Treaties, was unlawful on the ground that it was contrary to an international treaty such as the Refugee Convention which, in any event, was not in itself part of the law of the European Union
Go Back