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

B v International Protection Appeals Tribunal

emnadminLeave a Comment

Respondent/Defendant:International Protection Appeals Tribunal
Court/s:Supreme Court
Citation/s:[2019] IEHC 763
Nature of Proceedings:Appeal/Judicial Review
Judgment Date/s:14 Nov 2019
Judge:Barrett M
Category:Refugee Law
Keywords:Asylum (Application for), Country of Origin (Safe), Refugee
Country of Origin:Albania
URL:https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/15c28ab5-15e7-481f-b723-3a674f2a5621/2019_IEHC_763_1.pdf/pdf#view=fitH

Facts: The applicant was an Albanian national who was stalked by a co-worker who vandalised her husband’s car and subsequently fired shots at her husband. The appellant subsequently moved to Tirana but her stalker found her and further intimidated her there. The appellant claimed her stalker enjoyed political influence and/or protection in Albania so her complaints to the police were … Read More

Principles:The International Protection Appeals Tribunal erred in in its assessment of the impact of the fact that Albania has been designated as a safe country of origin in Irish law (by the International Protection Act 2015 (Safe Countries of Origin) Order 2018 (SI No.121/2018). The applicant had submitted serious grounds for considering the country not to be a safe country of origin in her particular circumstances.
Go Back

AP (Albania) v Refugee Appeals Tribunal and the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform

adminLeave a Comment

Respondent/Defendant:Refugee Appeals Tribunal and the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform
Court/s:High Court
Citation/s:[2014] IEHC 493
Nature of Proceedings:Judicial Review
Judgment Date/s:02 Oct 2014
Judge:Barr J.
Category:Refugee Law
Keywords:Asylum, Country of Origin (Safe), Country of Origin Information, Persecution, Refugee
Country of Origin:Albania
URL:https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/f20f0919-38e7-480c-a4ab-8d90879db384/2014_IEHC_493_1.pdf/pdf#view=fitH
Geographic Focus:Ireland

Facts: The applicant was an Albanian who claimed asylum in the State. He said that in March, 2007, his father killed a young boy in a road traffic accident in Albania. This gave rise to a blood feud between the boy’s family and the applicant’s family. The applicant feared that the boy’s family would try to kill him in revenge … Read More

Principles:

A fundamental element of fair procedures is that a protection applicant who does not understand English be provided with a competent interpreter at a hearing in order to enable him to follow proceedings and to make himself properly understood. Where this is not done, a protection decision is likely to be set aside as having been made in breach of fair procedures, particularly where an interpreter’s inability to convey the applicant’s evidence properly has led to a material mistake of fact by the protection decision-maker. In such cases, a protection decision-maker should consider granting an adjournment to enable the services of a suitable interpreter to be obtained.

Go Back

FO 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 123
Nature of Proceedings:Judicial Review
Judgment Date/s:31 Jan 2014
Judge:O’Malley J.
Category:Refugee Law
Keywords:Asylum, Country of Origin (Safe), Persecution, Refugee
Country of Origin:Afghanistan
URL:https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/51d7377f-7996-45cd-ac33-6a4c18793bb7/2014_IEHC_123_1.pdf/pdf#view=fitH
Geographic Focus:Ireland

Facts: The applicant claimed to be a national of Afghanistan and to fear persecution there on two bases. He said that his father had worked for the Taleban who wanted him to act as a suicide bomber. He underwent training for that purpose in a madrassa in Pakistan, but then changed his mind about it, and left a house in … Read More

Principles:

The failure of an asylum seeker to apply for asylum in the nearest safe country or in the first safe country to which he fled was not a bar to refugee status per se and was not necessarily inconsistent with a genuine fear of persecution.

Section 11B(d) of the Refugee Act 1996 applies only where an applicant claims that Ireland is the “first safe country” in which he or she has arrived since leaving the country of origin.

Go Back

Afolabi v Minister for Justice and Equality

adminLeave a Comment

Respondent/Defendant:Minister for Justice and Equality et al
Court/s:High Court
Nature of Proceedings:High Court of Ireland; Inter Partes; Application for Leave for Judicial Review
Judgment Date/s:17 May 2012
Judge:Cooke J
Category:Deportation
Keywords:Country of Origin (Safe), Deportation, Deportation Order, Protection (Subsidiary), Refoulement (Non-)
Country of Origin:Nigeria
URL:https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/2fd5f6ec-b197-495c-88c2-332e1f82a41d/2012_IEHC_192_1.pdf/pdf#view=fitH
Geographic Focus:Ireland

Facts The applicants, a mother and her three children, Nigerian nationals, sought to challenge their negative subsidiary protection decisions and deportation orders on various grounds, including that the Minister failed to cooperate with the applicants by giving them a draft of the subsidiary protection decision, and that the applicants did not have an effective remedy against that decision for want … Read More

Principles:

It is arguable that deportation orders are invalid where the Minister has not having personally considered whether the State’s non refoulement obligations would be breached by the deportation of the applicants.

Go Back

SUN [South Africa] v Refugee Applications Commissioner

adminLeave a Comment

Respondent/Defendant:Minister for Justice and Equality et al
Court/s:High Court
Nature of Proceedings:High Court of Ireland; Inter Partes; Application for Leave for Judicial Review
Judgment Date/s:30 Mar 2012
Judge:Cooke J
Category:Refugee Law
Keywords:Country of Origin (Safe), Refugee
Country of Origin:South Africia
URL:http://www.courts.ie/judgments.nsf/6681dee4565ecf2c80256e7e0052005b/304cf9a67af4206c80257a6400543b0b?OpenDocument
Geographic Focus:Ireland

Facts: This case concerned the absence of an oral hearing on appeal to the Refugee Appeals Tribunal where the Refugee Applications Commissioner makes a finding under s. 13(5) and (6)(e) of the Refugee Act 1996 that the applicant was a national of a country designated by the Minister as a ‘safe country’ pursuant to s. 12(4) of the 1996 Act. … Read More

Principles:

The wording of the statue clearly indicates an intention to leave to the judgment of the Commissioner the matters appropriate for the contents of the report, that cases may frequently arise where it would be possible or appropriate for the Commissioner to reach a conclusion on the recommendation without having to come to a view on the matters under ss. (6), and that ss. (6)(e) could have been cast in mandatory terms, had the Oireachtas intended a finding on safe country of origin to always be included where an applicant was from a country so designated. 

S. 13(5) of the Refugee Act 1996 falls to be interpreted as leaving to the judgment and discretion of the Commissioner the decision to make one or more findings under s. 13(6). 

Where the issue of credibility is clearly fundamental to the appeal, and the events and facts as described by the applicant are of a kind that could have taken place (as opposed to matters which are demonstrated to be impossible by independent evidence) but have been rejected because the applicant has been disbelieved, the effectiveness of the appeal as a matter of law is dependent on the availability to the applicant of an opportunity of persuading the deciding authority on appeal that he or she is personally credible in the matter. 

An adverse credibility presumption combined with a removal of the opportunity to rectify the personal impression the applicant makes on the decision maker tips the balance of proof against the applicant in a way that is unfair in that it results from a consideration which has no necessary connection with the applicant’s conduct, testimony or the inherent nature of his claim namely the fact of his nationality.

Where the Refugee Applications Commissioner has discretion, as it has here, as to the inclusion in the s. 13 report of a statutory finding under s. 13(6), the obligation to ensure that an applicant has access to an effective remedy by way of an appeal to the Tribunal requires that the finding re safe country ought not to be included when the effect will be to deprive the applicant of an oral hearing in an appeal against a negative recommendation which is based predominantly on a lack of credibility.

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

DCB v Refugee Applications Commissioner & Ors

Respondent/Defendant:Refugee Applications Commissioner & Ors
Court/s:High Court
Citation/s:Unreported
Judgment Date/s:16 Feb 2005
Judge:O’Leary
Category:Refugee Law
Keywords:Country of Origin (Safe), Refugee, Refugee Law, Refugee Status, Third Country (Safe)
Country of Origin:Romania
References:Immigration Act 1999; Refugee Act 1996

The applicant, a Romanian national, claimed that the Minister had failed to properly follow the terms laid down in Section 12(4) of the Immigration Act 1999 in designating Romania a safe country. The Court found that relevant considerations included (i) that there be a consultation with the Minister for Foreign Affairs,  (ii) that it should be clarified whether the country … Read More

Principles:

In considering whether a country is a safe country of origin, relevant considerations for the Minister include (i) that there be a consultation with the Minister for Foreign Affairs, (ii) whether the country is party to, or complies with, the specified obligations, and (iii) whether the county has a domestic political system, independent judiciary, and is governed by the rule of law.

Go Back

Gioshvile v Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform


Gioshvilli
Respondent/Defendant:Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform
Court/s:High Court
Citation/s:Unreported
Judgment Date/s:31 Jan 2003
Judge:Finlay Geoghegan
Category:Refugee Law
Keywords:Country of Origin (Safe), Refugee, Refugee Law, Refugee Status, Third Country (Safe)
Country of Origin:Georgia

The Applicant left Georgia in 1989, lived in Russia until 1999 and subsequently sought asylum in Ireland. The Refugee Applications Commissioner, in determining his claim, stated that Russia might have amounted to a safe third country. The applicant appealed to the Refugee Appeals Tribunal. The Tribunal concluded that the applicant’s fear of persecution in Russia was not well grounded. The … Read More

Principles:It is arguable that refugees are not obliged to seek asylum in the first available safe country to which they flee. It is arguable that the circumstances of an applicant’s departure from a State other than that of which he is a national are not relevant where an applicant has a country of origin or habitual residence.
Go Back