LT v Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform and the Refugee Appeals Tribunal

adminLeave a Comment

Respondent/Defendant:Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform and the Refugee Appeals Tribunal
Court/s:High Court
Citation/s:[2014] IEHC 290
Nature of Proceedings:Judicial Review
Judgment Date/s:30 May 2014
Judge:MacEochaidh J.
Category:Refugee Law
Keywords:Asylum, Asylum application (Examination of an), Persecution, Persecution (Actors of), Refugee, Refugee (Convention), Refugee Law, Refugee Status
Country of Origin:Nigeria
URL:https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/5c809202-173f-4d7c-be27-8e412e255df9/2014_IEHC_290_1.pdf/pdf#view=fitH
Geographic Focus:Ireland

Facts: The applicant, a national of Nigeria, claimed to be a Christian and to have had a husband whom she converted to Christianity from Islam in 1992. She said that she fell foul of her husband’s family as a result, and they took her child in 1993. She said that she moved around Nigeria on a number of occasions owing … Read More

Principles:

Under Article 8 of the Qualification Directive and reg. 7 of the EC (Eligibility for Protection) Regulations 2006, a protection decision-maker, when examining the possibility of internal relocation, must enquire as to whether the applicant's persecutors might harm him or her in an identified part of the country of origin. If it is found that the identified part of the country is free from the applicant's well-founded fear of persecution, the decision-maker must also be satisfied that the applicant could reasonably be expected to stay there, and in reaching that conclusion, regard has to be had to the general circumstances prevailing there and to the personal circumstances of the applicant.

Go Back

A (A Minor) v Refugee Appeals Tribunal

adminLeave a Comment

Respondent/Defendant:Refugee Appeals Tribunal
Court/s:Supreme Court
Citation/s:Unreported judgment
Nature of Proceedings:Appeal
Judgment Date/s:16 Jan 2013
Judge:Hardiman, Fennelly, O’Donnell, Clarke and MacMenamin JJ
Category:Refugee Law
Keywords:Asylum, Asylum (Application for), Asylum application (Examination of an), Child, Minor, Persecution, Persecution (Actors of), Protection, Refugee
Country of Origin:Nigeria
Geographic Focus:Ireland

Facts The applicant’s mother made an asylum application on her behalf in which she alleged that the applicant was at risk of female genital mutilation (“FGM”) in Nigeria from a family member. The Refugee Appeals Tribunal found that the claim lacked credibility and, in effect, cast doubt on the existence of the family member. It also found that state protection … Read More

Principles:

It is not sufficient for a person claiming to fear persecution on the basis of FGM to show that there is a high statistical incidence of FGM in her community or tribe. She must show a credible basis for believing that an “agent of persecution” exists who would inflict it on her in her country of origin.

Go Back

SN (Uganda) 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:2011 IEHC 451, Unreported
Nature of Proceedings:Hearing of an application for judicial review of a decision of the Minister for Justice refusing subsidiary protection
Judgment Date/s:27 Jul 2011
Judge:Hogan J.
Category:Refugee Law
Keywords:Common Basic Principles, Common European Asylum System (CEAS), Persecution, Persecution (Actors of), Protection (Person Eligible for Subsidiary), Protection (Subsidiary), Refugee
URL:https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/c1455e40-b6d4-4dd4-b529-4a9ef046d6ad/2011_IEHC_451_1.pdf/pdf#view=fitH
Geographic Focus:Ireland

The applicant had been granted leave to seek judicial review on one ground, namely whether the Minister’s decision to refuse to grant the applicant subsidiary protection contravened Regulations 5(1) and (2) of the European Communities (Subsidiary Protection) Regulations 2006 (S.I. No. 518 of 2006) by failing to consider and state a conclusion on the claim made by the applicant that … Read More

Principles:
  1. In applying Regulation 5(2) of the European Communities (Subsidiary Protection) Regulations 2006 (S.I. No. 518 of 2006) the decision maker must:
    • ask himself whether an applicant suffered persecution or serious harm in the past. If the answer to this question is yes, the decision maker is required;
    • to ask whether there are good reasons to consider that such persecution or serious harm would not be repeated if the applicant was returned to her country of origin. If the answer to that question is yes, the decision maker is still required;
    • to apply the counter exception of Regulation 5(2) and ask whether there are compelling reasons arising out of previous persecution or serious harm alone such as might warrant a determination that the applicant is eligible for protection.
  2. Where a decision maker takes the view that there are many other possible causes for an applicant’s injuries, the decision maker is still obliged to address the question of whether the applicant did in fact suffer serious harm in the sense of the Regulations, namely, whether the injuries were inflicted by State actors in the manner alleged.
  3. If a decision maker is satisfied that there is no reason for considering that the previous harm would be repeated, he is still obliged to consider whether the historic serious harm may be such that the fact of its occurrence alone gives rise to compelling reasons for recognising eligibility.
Go Back