S.Y. v Minister for Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth & ors

EMNireland


S.Y. v Minister for Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth & ors
Respondent/Defendant:The Minister for Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth, Ireland, the Attorney General, the Child and Family Agency
Court/s:High Court
Citation/s:[2023] IEHC 187
Nature of Proceedings:Judicial Review
Judgment Date/s:21 Apr 2023
Judge: Meenan C.
Category:Asylum, Refugee Law
Keywords:Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Child, Minor, Protection (Application for International), Reception Conditions, Reception Conditions (Material)
Country of Origin:Afghanistan
URL:https://courts.ie/acc/alfresco/599db9da-fb81-48fc-9cfb-cbbdfa313df5/2023_IEHC_187.pdf/pdf#view=fitH

Facts: The appellant was a 17-year-old Afghan national who applied for international protection in Ireland. He did not have documents to prove his age when he applied for international protection, and it was believed by authorities that he was an adult. When he applied, he was informed that there was no accommodation available for international protection applicants. He was given … Read More

Principles: Failure to provide an applicant with material reception conditions is unlawful under the European Union (Reception Conditions) Regulations 2018 and such a failure is a breach of the right to human dignity under Article 1 CFREU.
Go Back

A (A Minor) -v- International Protection Appeals Tribunal (Labour Market Access)

EMNireland


A (A Minor) -v- International Protection Appeals Tribunal (Labour Market Access)
Respondent/Defendant:International Protection Appeals Tribunal
Citation/s:[2023] IEHC 141
Nature of Proceedings:Judicial Review
Judgment Date/s:23 Mar 2023
Judge:Simons, G.
Category:Asylum, Refugee Law
Keywords:Asylum Applicant, Child, Child Labour, Common European Asylum System (CEAS), Family Member, Minor, Reception Conditions, Reception Conditions (Material), Regularisation
URL:https://courts.ie/view/judgments/a6ff02c1-775d-46fd-b3d7-e4c89cf081b2/3dfbcb87-96e0-4360-a374-0c4447b6a4bd/2023_IEHC_141.pdf/pdf

Facts: The claimants were two parents and their child, who was under the age of two. The parents previously applied for international protection and their applications were unsuccessful. They were then subject to deportation orders.   Their child was born in April 2021 and an application was made for international protection in respect of the child. The parents contended that they … Read More

Principles:An infant child does not have a right to work in the Irish State, not only under the recast Reception Conditions Directive, but under national law. Thus the parents could not vicariously exercise a right that the child did not hold. The parents also could not derive a right to work from the child applicant.
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

SH and AJ v Minister for Justice, Ireland and the Attorney General

admin

Respondent/Defendant:Minister for Justice, Ireland and the Attorney General
Court/s:High Court
Citation/s:[2022] IEHC 392
Nature of Proceedings:Judicial Review
Judgment Date/s:27 Jun 2022
Judge:Ferriter C.
Category:International protection, Refugee Law
Keywords:Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Child, Discrimination (Indirect), European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), Family Reunification, Family Unity (Right to), Minor
Country of Origin:Syria, Somalia
URL:https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/80e83a63-c91b-47e7-a90d-99f4a672064e/2022_IEHC_392.pdf/pdf#view=fitH

Facts: SH was a Syrian national whose wife and three children resided in Syria. SH applied for international protection in Ireland in February 2020. There were delays in processing his case, including due to COVID-19. While awaiting an interview, one of SH’s sons turned 18. SH was granted refugee status in June 2021 and subsequently made a family reunification application … Read More

Principles:The delays experienced during the COVID-19 pandemic were exceptional and not unreasonable delays for processing an international protection application. The scope of the definition of family members eligible for family reunification under section 56 of the International Protection Act 2015 was a matter of policy choice by the legislature and not in breach of EU law, nor was it repugnant to the Constitution or the ECHR. Failure to inform a beneficiary of international protection of their right to family reunification promptly and in a language they can likely understand is in violation of Article 22 of the Qualification Directive 2004/83/EC
Go Back

H & anor v Minister for Justice and Equality

admin


H & anor v Minister for Justice and Equality
Respondent/Defendant:Minister for Justice and Equality, Ireland
Court/s:High Court, Supreme Court
Citation/s:[2020] IEHC 360, [2021] IESC 0032
Nature of Proceedings:Appeal
Judgment Date/s:11 May 2021
Judge:Charleton P.
Category:Deportation
Keywords:Deportation Order, European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), Family Member, Free Movement, Illegal Stay, Minor, Union Citizen
Country of Origin:Pakistan
URL:https://www.courts.ie/view/judgments/890a1003-8ef2-425c-935a-40d96c3b1c33/c6bf103b-a935-4894-b4d8-b9b773ba936f/2021_IESC_32.pdf/pdf

Facts: MIH and her daughter, SIH, are Pakistani nationals. They arrived in Ireland in 2014 with MIH’s brother, a British citizen and applied for EU1 Residence Cards. These applications were refused. At that time, the Minister issued notifications proposing to deport the applicants pursuant to section 3 of the Immigration Act 1999, as amended. However, it was not until 18 … Read More

Principles:Delay in issuing a deportation order, in and of itself, cannot create rights to remain in the State where otherwise non-nationals have no entitlement to residence.
Go Back

X v Minister for Justice

emnadminLeave a Comment


X v Minister for Justice
Respondent/Defendant:Minister for Justice
Court/s:Supreme Court
Citation/s:[2020] IESC 30
Nature of Proceedings:Appeal/Judicial Review
Judgment Date/s:09 Jun 2020
Judge:Dunne E
Category:Refugee Law
Keywords:Child, Family Reunification, Minor, Refugee
Country of Origin:Cameroon
URL:https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/8e8e0650-abef-4c54-91d9-48b06e388d74/2020_IESC_30(Unapproved).pdf/pdf#view=fitH

Facts The issue at the heart of this appeal was the extent or breadth of the definition of “child” for the purpose of refugee family reunification and whether that definition could include a minor who is not a biological or adopted child of the applicant. The High Court ([2019] IEHC 284) held that the term “child” in section 56(9) of … Read More

Principles:For the purposes of refugee family reunification, the term “child” in section 56(9) of the International Protection Act 2015 is limited to a biological or adoptive child.
Go Back

ED v Refugee Appeals Tribunal

adminLeave a Comment

Respondent/Defendant:Refugee Appeals Tribunal
Court/s:Supreme Court
Citation/s:[2016] IESC 77
Nature of Proceedings:Appeal
Judgment Date/s:21 Dec 2016
Judge:Clarke F.
Category:Refugee Law
Keywords:Asylum, Child, Discrimination (Direct), Discrimination (Indirect), Discrimination (Racial), Minor, Nationality (Ethnic), Persecution, Refugee, Refugee Law
Country of Origin:Serbia
URL:https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/18079cc2-2bc5-4cbf-aeba-305bfade18c9/2016_IESC_77_1.pdf/pdf#view=fitH
Geographic Focus:Other

Facts: The applicant was a child who applied for asylum on the basis of a well-founded fear of persecution if returned to Serbia on the basis of his Ashkali ethnicity. His application was rejected at first instance by the Refugee Applications Commissioner and on appeal to the Refugee Appeals Tribunal. Although it was accepted that the applicant would in all … Read More

Principles:

This decision establishes that discrimination can amount to persecution for the purposes of refugee status, especially where that discrimination was carried out by the State or condoned by the State by reason of lack of appropriate action. An overall assessment of the elements of discrimination is required in order to determine whether they cumulatively could be said to be sufficiently serious so as to amount to persecution.

Go Back

AD and Others v Refugee Appeals Tribunal and Others

adminLeave a Comment

Respondent/Defendant:Refugee Appeals Tribunal, Minister for Justice and Equality, Ireland and the Attorney General
Court/s:High Court
Citation/s:[2015] IEHC 779
Nature of Proceedings:Judicial Review
Judgment Date/s:24 Nov 2015
Judge:Faherty J.
Category:Refugee Law
Keywords:Minor, Refugee
Country of Origin:Nigeria
URL:https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/1f7370a8-29d4-4fe5-a066-6b57aa7065bf/2015_IEHC_779_1.pdf/pdf#view=fitH
Geographic Focus:Ireland

Facts: The first applicant was a Nigerian national, mother of the second and third applicants who were born in Ireland. She had arrived in the State on a visitor’s visa to visit her sister. During the visit, she suffered a relapse of bi-polar disorder and was treated for this in the State. The Minister for Justice declined to renew her … Read More

Principles:

The provisions of the UNHCR Handbook on examining the claims of vulnerable protection applicants will not necessarily be applicable simply because an applicant for protection had suffered from a vulnerability, such as mental illness, in the past. In order to apply, evidence will be required, e.g. that the person was unable to articulate his or her case orally or in writing.

Go Back

AN v Refugee Appeals Tribunal and Others

adminLeave a Comment

Respondent/Defendant:Refugee Appeals Tribunal, Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Ireland and the Attorney General
Court/s:High Court
Citation/s:[2015] IEHC 699
Nature of Proceedings:Judicial Review
Judgment Date/s:16 Oct 2015
Judge:Faherty J.
Category:Refugee Law
Keywords:Minor, Refugee
Country of Origin:Pakistan
URL:https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/dd62ffd1-d6c4-457b-b11c-93536552552c/2015_IEHC_699_1.pdf/pdf#view=fitH
Geographic Focus:Ireland

Facts: The applicant was a national of Pakistan who was born in Ireland to Pakistani parents. Her mother claimed asylum on her behalf. She said that the applicant’s life was at risk in Pakistan because her mother and her brothers did not approve of her marriage to her father. The applicant’s parents had both unsuccessfully claimed asylum, their applications failing … Read More

Principles:

A protection-decision maker dealing with a minor’s claim should set out on a reasoned basis the factors which have led it to reject that claim in its decision.

In deciding that internal relocation is a viable option for a minor applicant, regard should be had to the circumstances of its parent(s) and whether it would be reasonable for them to move the proposed place of relocation with the child.

Go Back

ON and Others v Refugee Appeals Tribunal and Others

adminLeave a Comment

Respondent/Defendant:Refugee Appeals Tribunal, Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Ireland and the Attorney General
Court/s:High Court
Citation/s:[2015] IEHC 585
Nature of Proceedings:Judicial Review
Judgment Date/s:22 Sep 2015
Judge:Faherty J.
Category:Refugee Law
Keywords:Minor, Refugee
Country of Origin:Nigeria
URL:http://www.courts.ie/Judgments.nsf/0/22A0176572A35F1980257ED60032592D
Geographic Focus:Ireland

Facts:The applicants were nationals of Nigeria. The first named applicant had four children, three whom were born in Greece and another born in Ireland. She claimed asylum in Ireland on the basis that she was at risk of persecution in Nigeria on grounds of imputed political opinion allegedly arising out of her husband’s activities as a community youth leader and … Read More

Principles:

Decision-makers should not draw negative inferences in the absence of a proper evidential basis.

In deciding whether to set aside a decision for flaws in a credibility analysis containing a number of findings, a court should refrain from doing so unless it is unsure what weight has been attached to the various findings.

A decision-maker minded to make a finding on internal relocation should identify a proper place of relocation.

Go Back

GH (a minor) v Refugee Appeals Tribunal and Others

adminLeave a Comment

Respondent/Defendant:Refugee Appeals Tribunal, Minister for Justice and Equality, Attorney General and Ireland
Court/s:High Court
Citation/s:[2015] IEHC 583
Nature of Proceedings:Judicial Review
Judgment Date/s:17 Sep 2015
Judge:Eagar J.
Category:Refugee Law
Keywords:Child, Minor, Persecution, Refugee
Country of Origin:Pakistan
URL:https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/c4dc03f2-1a9f-4efb-8c7f-3c6b9797f7cb/2015_IEHC_583_1.pdf/pdf#view=fitH
Geographic Focus:Ireland

Facts: The applicant and her mother arrived in Ireland from Pakistan and claimed asylum on the basis of fear of persecution as Ahmadi Muslims. Their applications were unsuccessful before the Refugee Applications Commissioner and the Refugee Appeals Tribunal. The applicant, who was seven years old, challenged the Tribunal’s decision, which considered her to be an “unexceptional Ahmadi” and therefore not … Read More

Principles:

When the Refugee Appeals Tribunal is hearing an appeal taken on behalf of a minor, it should assume a greater share of the burden of proof, and when considering whether feared ill-treatment constitutes persecution, it should bear in mind that a child might more easily satisfy the persecution requirement of the refugee definition than an adult.

Go Back

Dos Santos and Others v Minister for Justice and Others

adminLeave a Comment

Respondent/Defendant:Minister for Justice and Equality, Attorney General and Ireland
Citation/s:[2015] IECA 210
Nature of Proceedings:Appeal
Judgment Date/s:30 Jul 2015
Judge:Ryan P., Finlay Geoghegan and Peart JJ.
Category:Deportation
Keywords:Child, Deportation, Deportation Order, Migrant (Illegally resident / staying), Minor
Country of Origin:Brazil
URL:https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/98a68780-969f-4cb6-846a-1f3b248d555d/2015_IECA_210_2.pdf/pdf#view=fitH
Geographic Focus:Ireland

Facts: The appellants were all members of a Brazilian family who arrived in Ireland at various dates between 2002 and 2007. The father had arrived in Ireland lawfully on a work permit in 2002. It expired in 2003. Nevertheless he remained in the State, continued initially to work and paid all appropriate taxes without the relevant immigration permission. His unlawful … Read More

Principles:

Non citizens of the State do not have a personal right within the meaning of Article 40.3 of the Constitution to remain in the State and/or participate in community life in the State.

The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child is not part of Irish domestic law. Section 3(6)(a) of the Immigration Act 1999, which obliged the Minister for Justice to take account of an applicant’s age when deciding whether or not to make a deportation order against him or her, did not require him, when dealing with a minor applicant, to treat as a primary consideration the best interests of that child or, alternatively, to decide expressly whether deportation would be consistent with its best interests.

The EU’s Charter of Fundamental Rights has no applicability to the making of deportation orders.

The interference caused by deportation of non-settled migrants with the right to respect for their private life under article 8 ECHR does not have consequences of such gravity potentially to engage the article’s operation.

Go Back

Chigaru and Others v Minister for Justice and Others.

adminLeave a Comment

Respondent/Defendant:Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Ireland and the Attorney General
Citation/s:[2015] IECA 167
Nature of Proceedings:Appeal
Judgment Date/s:27 Jul 2015
Judge:Kelly, Irvine and Hogan JJ.
Category:Deportation
Keywords:Child, Deportation, Deportation Order, Family Life (Right to), Minor
Country of Origin:Malawi
URL:https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/078d46e5-2d49-4cf1-9ca0-09f4535fb87e/2015_IECA_167_1.pdf/pdf#view=fitH
Geographic Focus:Ireland

Facts: The applicants were a father, a mother and their two children. They were all nationals of Malawi who unsuccessfully sought asylum and subsidiary protection in Ireland, following which deportation orders were made against them in 2011. They unsuccessfully sought leave from the High Court to challenge the orders and appealed its decision, following which they evaded deportation, with the … Read More

Principles:

Where a family of non Irish-nationals, comprising parents and children of tender years, who are subject to deportation orders have evaded deportation, the parents’ conduct cannot be considered in isolation from their children, who are blameless in respect of their parents’ conduct. The balance of convenience may not favour enjoining the parents’ deportation but it will favour enjoining their children’s deportation. Under Articles 41, 42 and 42A of the Constitution, the children are entitled to the company and care of their parents and, assuming the parents are properly caring for their children, it is likely that it will be necessary to enjoin their deportation too.

Go Back

PO and Another v Minister for Justice and Equality and Others

adminLeave a Comment

Respondent/Defendant:Minister for Justice and Equality, Ireland and Attorney General
Court/s:Supreme Court
Citation/s:[2015] IESC 64
Nature of Proceedings:Appeal
Judgment Date/s:16 Jul 2015
Judge:MacMenamin, Laffoy and Charleton JJ.
Category:Deportation
Keywords:Child, Country of Origin Information, Deportation, Deportation Order, Minor
Country of Origin:Nigeria
URL:https://www.courts.ie/search/judgments/%22%20type%3AJudgment%22%20AND%20%22filter%3Aalfresco_radio.title%22%20AND%20%22filter%3Aalfresco_NeutralCitation.%5B2015%5D%20IESC%2064%22
Geographic Focus:Ireland

Facts: The appellants were a mother and her nine year old son. Both of them were Nigerian nationals, although the son had been born in Ireland. They both applied unsuccessfully for refugee status, after which proposals to make deportation orders issued to them. They did not make representations for leave to remain and the Minister for Justice decided to make … Read More

Principles:

The Minister for Justice is entitled to source country of origin information when assessing a request to revoke a deportation order and does not necessarily have to bring it to the applicant’s attention, e.g. where it is in the public domain.

The Minister does not need to prepare guidelines for dealing with revocation requests from non-nationals born in Ireland. Each case should be assessed on its own merits.

Non Irish nationals who create uncertainty as to their status within a Contracting State, by claiming asylum rights that are unfounded, cannot rely on mere presence to invoke rights under article 8 ECHR. When considering the interaction of the two paragraphs of article 8 ECHR, a wide margin of appreciation is afforded to decision-makers in deciding whether or not to deport non Irish-nationals. The rights of children are, save for extraordinary circumstances, dependent upon the approach of the parent who made claims on those children’s behalf.

Go Back

AGA and Another v Minister for Justice

adminLeave a Comment

Respondent/Defendant:Minister for Justice and Equality
Court/s:High Court
Citation/s:[2015] IEHC 469
Nature of Proceedings:Judicial Review
Judgment Date/s:16 Jul 2015
Judge:Stewart J.
Category:Residence
Keywords:Child, Family Life (Right to), Minor, Residence
Country of Origin:United Kingdom and Nigeria
URL:https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/bd762853-57c9-4297-bf9e-16e9066bb537/2015_IEHC_469_1.pdf/pdf#view=fitH
Geographic Focus:Ireland

Facts: The applicants, who were mother and daughter, sought to quash a decision of the Minister for Justice whereby she refused the first applicant’s application for residency, which was based on the decision of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) in C-200/02 Zhu and Chen. They claimed that the second applicant was a national of the United … Read More

Principles:

In deciding whether a primary carer of a minor (who is a citizen of the European Union) has sufficient resources, the Minister for Justice is entitled to investigate whether such resources exist and inquires into their amount and availability.

Go Back

OJU (a minor) v Refugee Applications Commissioner and Another

adminLeave a Comment

Respondent/Defendant:Refugee Applications Commissioner and Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform
Court/s:High Court
Citation/s:[2015] IEHC 412
Nature of Proceedings:Judicial Review
Judgment Date/s:06 Jul 2015
Judge:MacEochaidh J.
Category:Refugee Law
Keywords:Minor, Refugee
Country of Origin:Nigeria
URL:https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/ef8fe2cf-1eac-4638-ab5d-25eff6a6c9a8/2015_IEHC_412_1.pdf/pdf#view=fitH
Geographic Focus:Ireland

Facts: The applicant was born in Ireland in July 2008. Her mother applied for asylum on her behalf in February 2010. At an earlier stage, her mother had sought asylum based on a fear that village elders in her native Edo State, Nigeria, would force her to subject her older daughter to female genital mutilation. She was refused refugee status … Read More

Principles:

Ideally, when a protection decision-maker is finding that state protection is available to an applicant, it should either refer to some source which confirms the existence of a functioning police force or other form of protection, or to the presumption that functioning states protect their citizens. It may, however, suffice if its conclusion is preceded by a reference to the definition of protection in reg. 2 of the EC (Eligibility for Protection) Regulations 2006 (or subsequent similar legislation, such as the EU (Subsidiary Protection) Regulations 2013).

It is insufficient for an applicant challenging a protection decision in judicial review proceedings to say that the requirements of reg. 5(1)(a) of the Regulations of 2006 (or cognate provisions of other legislation) have been breached because there has not been any assessment of relevant facts as they related to the country of origin at the time the decision was made. Significantly detailed complaints as to what facts were not considered, as well as submissions as to the effect of the alleged omission, would be required to ground such a complaint. Similar considerations apply if it is asserted baldly that evidence should as country of origin information has not been considered, or that there has been a failure to consider an applicant’s personal circumstances when making a finding that internal relocation would be available to him.

Go Back

Sivsivadze v Minister for Justice and Equality & ors

adminLeave a Comment

Respondent/Defendant:Minister for Justice and Equality, Attorney General and Ireland
Court/s:Supreme Court
Citation/s:[2015] IESC 53
Nature of Proceedings:Appeal
Judgment Date/s:23 Jun 2015
Judge:Murray, Hardiman, O’Donnell, Clarke and MacMenamin JJ.
Category:Deportation
Keywords:Absconding, Adult, Asylum, Deportation, Deportation Order, Family Life (Right to), Immigration, Minor, Overstay(er)
Country of Origin:Georgia
URL:https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/b3fe2fb0-bb95-4883-8b4e-bec277ffaf14/2015_IESC_53_1.pdf/pdf#view=fitH
Geographic Focus:Europe

Facts: The first and fourth applicants, both Georgian nationals, were wife and husband respectively, and parents of the second and third applicants. They had both unsuccessfully applied for asylum in Ireland. The Minister for Justice had made a deportation order in respect of the fourth applicant in 2001, on foot of which he had been deported in 2011. The applicants … Read More

Principles:

A non-Irish national who has no permission to be in the State may be made the subject of a deportation order by the Minister for Justice which has the effect of requiring him or her to leave the State and remain outside of it indefinitely. On account of his or her status, such an order does not deny him or her any right to be in the State. Whether or not the making of such an order is disproportionate on account of inter alia its effect on family life, will depend on the facts of each individual case. A general charge of disproportionality cannot be levelled against the sub-sections in an effort to have them struck down as unconstitutional. Such a case can only be made in a factual context.

The indefinite nature of an order made under s. 3(1) has to be considered in the light of s. 3(11), pursuant to which the subject of it may apply for it to be amended or revoked at any time. In deciding whether or not to make or to amend or revoke an order, the Minster for Justice must act constitutionally and have regard to the facts of the particular case, including any representations made about the impact of the order on such matters as family rights.

In deciding whether or not to dismiss an appeal for abuse of process in which a constitutional provision is challenged, regard must be had to the value which the Constitution attaches to such an appeal, the right of persons not to be subject to unconstitutional laws. It may also be necessary to consider the interests of any children who are party to the proceedings, bearing in mind Article 42A of the Constitution. However, the sole fact that a blameless minor had been included in proceedings would not necessarily prevent a court exercising its discretion to dismiss an appeal on the grounds of abuse of process, particularly in judicial review proceedings.

Go Back

CFA (a minor) v Refugee Appeals Tribunal and Others

adminLeave a Comment

Respondent/Defendant:Refugee Appeals Tribunal, Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Ireland and the Attorney General
Court/s:High Court
Citation/s:[2015] IEHC 702
Nature of Proceedings:Judicial Review
Judgment Date/s:19 Jun 2015
Judge:Faherty J.
Category:Refugee Law
Keywords:Country of Origin Information, Minor, Refugee
Country of Origin:Nigeria
URL:https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/9e2e8666-c56c-45e0-b87a-574d5fecffe8/2015_IEHC_702_1.pdf/pdf#view=fitH
Geographic Focus:Ireland

Facts: The applicant was born in Ireland to Nigerian parents. Her mother claimed that she would be subject to female genital mutilation (FGM) and discriminated against on the basis of her single parent status in Nigeria. Her mother had previously unsuccessfully claimed asylum in the State. Having investigated her claim, the Refugee Applications Commissioner made a negative recommendation on it, … Read More

Principles:

Delay on the part of Irish-born children in applying for asylum cannot be the subject of a negative credibility finding under s. 11B(d) of the Refugee Act 1996.

When assessing credibility on an application for refugee status, a decision-maker should not necessarily draw negative inferences based on discrepancies between the ASY1 form and the questionnaire.

Where an applicant fears a particular form of ill-treatment, such as FGM, a decision-maker who is minded to find that internal relocation is available to such a person should establish if the ill-treatment is against the law in the place of relocation.

Go Back

OI and Another v Refugee Appeals Tribunal and Others

adminLeave a Comment

Respondent/Defendant:Refugee Appeals Tribunal, Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Ireland and the Attorney General
Court/s:High Court
Citation/s:[2015] IEHC 408
Nature of Proceedings:Judicial Review
Judgment Date/s:17 Jun 2015
Judge:MacEochaidh J.
Category:Deportation
Keywords:Deportation, Minor
Country of Origin:Nigeria
URL:https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/36757c1c-10b1-4cf6-97e7-a1a9d34d462d/2015_IEHC_408_1.pdf/pdf#view=fitH
Geographic Focus:Ireland

Facts: The applicants were a Nigerian mother and her young daughter who claimed asylum on the ground of a fear of persecution by the militant group MEND (“Movement for the Emancipation of the Niger Delta”). The mother claimed that her former boyfriend (who was allegedly involved with the group) had been killed by them, and that they now pursued her … Read More

Principles:

Vagueness in pleadings will not necessarily debar an applicant from making arguments based on them where the arguments they seek to make have been elaborated on in writing in sufficient time before a hearing so as to enable the other side to become conversant with the challenge intended to be made.

Go Back

SFA (a minor) and AA v Refugee Applications Commissioner

adminLeave a Comment

Respondent/Defendant:Refugee Applications Commissioner, Minister for Justice and Equality, Ireland and the Attorney General
Court/s:High Court
Citation/s:[2015] IEHC 364
Nature of Proceedings:Judicial Review
Judgment Date/s:16 Jun 2015
Judge:MacEochaidh J.
Category:Refugee Law
Keywords:Country of Origin Information, Minor, Refugee
Country of Origin:Nigeria
URL:https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/3538ea46-78d3-46c9-9ec6-d0ee862aaf30/2015_IEHC_364_1.pdf/pdf#view=fitH
Geographic Focus:Ireland

Facts: The applicants, Nigerian nationals, were daughter and mother respectively. The second named applicant (mother) claimed asylum based on a fear of persecution by the Muslim family of the father of the first named applicant (her daughter). She stated that the family objected to their inter-religious relationship and that they burned down her house and shop. The application was rejected … Read More

Principles:

Judicial review will generally not lie against decisions  of a first instance protection decision-maker where it has made errors within jurisdiction.

Where a protection applicant considers that evidence has not been taken into account by a decision-maker, he or she must establish the existence of that evidence, show how it was relevant to the claim, and how the failure to take it into account has materially prejudiced him or her.

Go Back