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

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

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

IX v Chief International Protection Officer

adminLeave a Comment

Respondent/Defendant:Chief International Protection Officer
Court/s:Supreme Court
Citation/s:[2020] IESC 44
Nature of Proceedings:Judicial review/appeal
Judgment Date/s:21 Feb 2020
Judge:O’Donnell D
Category:Refugee Law
Keywords:Asylum application (Examination of an), Protection (Application for International)
Country of Origin:Albania
URL:https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/93443605-c174-44fc-a484-4ad9d6638244/2020_IESC_44.pdf/pdf#view=fitH

Facts: The applicants had applied for refugee status in the State. The assessment of their applications at first instance involved the use of independent contractors known as “panel members” who had been engaged by the International Protection Officer to interview applicants and prepare draft reports in respect of applications for international protection. The applicants instituted judicial review proceedings challenging the … Read More

Principles:The investigation of the application for international protection and preparation of first instance reports was done in accordance with the statutory scheme and there was therefore no illegality in the manner in which panel members were employed as part of the process.
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

BW v Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform

adminLeave a Comment

Respondent/Defendant:Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform
Court/s:Court of Appeal
Citation/s:[2017] IECA 296
Nature of Proceedings:Appeal
Judgment Date/s:15 Nov 2017
Judge:Peart M.
Category:Refugee Law
Keywords:Asylum (Application for), Protection (Application for International), Refugee, Refugee Law
Country of Origin:Nigeria
URL:https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/d350b5b9-b21e-4d90-81dc-c43f7a116232/2017_IECA_296_1.pdf/pdf#view=fitH
Geographic Focus:Other

Facts: The applicant came to Ireland from Nigeria in 2007. She applied for refugee status in 2011. Her application was unsuccessful. She appealed to the first respondent. The appeal was a papers only appeal. The appeal was unsuccessful. The Refugee Appeals Tribunal made adverse credibility findings based on matters that had not been put to the applicant and concluded that … Read More

Principles:

Where an issue of concern emerged for the first time on a papers only appeal in relation to a matter which the appellant had not already had a fair opportunity to address and that concern was in relation to something material to the basis on which asylum was being sought, and therefore to the decision whether or not she be granted a declaration of refugee status, the appellant was as a matter of fair procedures entitled to an opportunity to address it before any adverse finding of credibility was made against her.

Go Back

FF v Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform

adminLeave a Comment

Respondent/Defendant:Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform
Court/s:Court of Appeal
Citation/s:[2017] IECA 273
Nature of Proceedings:Appeal
Judgment Date/s:25 Oct 2017
Judge:Finlay Geoghegan M.
Category:Refugee Law
Keywords:Asylum, Protection (Application for International), Refugee, Refugee Law, Stateless Person
Country of Origin:Cameroon
URL:https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/318af6e0-f050-45db-b8e0-08c467775cdc/2017_IECA_273_1.pdf/pdf#view=fitH
Geographic Focus:Other

Facts: The applicant was born in Cameroon in 1965. He worked as a journalist and with an NGO and claimed to have experienced persecution in Cameroon, including arrest, detention and torture. He fled to Nigeria in 1999 and was recognised as a refugee there in 2001. He claims to have been threatened by a Cameroonian diplomat in Nigeria, and in … Read More

Principles:

The Qualification Directive in using the term “a stateless person” in the definition of “refugee” in Article 2(c) is using this term to connote the second category of persons referred to in the definition of refugee in the Geneva Convention, namely persons “not having a nationality”. This meant a person who was de jure stateless but did not include a person who was de facto stateless.

Go Back

AON v Refugee Appeals Tribunal

adminLeave a Comment

Respondent/Defendant:Refugee Appeals Tribunal
Court/s:High Court
Citation/s:[2016] IEHC 465
Judgment Date/s:29 Jul 2016
Judge:MacEochaidh C.
Category:Refugee Law
Keywords:Asylum application (Examination of an), Persecution, Protection (Application for International), Refugee, Refugee Law
Country of Origin:Uganda
URL:https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/2fd8ac77-0cde-45ea-8180-48a12280718d/2016_IEHC_465_1.pdf/pdf#view=fitH
Geographic Focus:Other

Facts: The applicant was a Ugandan national who applied for refugee status in the State. She claimed that she was detained in 2007 and 2011 because of her involvement in politics, and that while in detention she was physically abused and sexually assaulted. She submitted a medical report in support of her claim which noted that she exhibited scars typical … Read More

Principles:

A refugee decision maker is entitled to make findings as to credibility based on demeanour provided these are fully explained and based on accurate observation. A medical report is not evidence of past persecution or past serious harm; such a report can only describe the injury and whether the injury observed is consistent with the narrative of the claimant.

Go Back

JCO 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 26
Nature of Proceedings:Judicial Review
Judgment Date/s:30 Jan 2014
Judge:MacEochaidh J.
Category:Refugee Law
Keywords:Asylum, Asylum (Application for), Asylum application (Examination of an), Persecution, Protection, Protection (Application for International), Refugee, Refugee (Convention)
Country of Origin:Nigeria
URL:https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/7328f48c-e901-46c1-9be3-e64964c6169d/2014_IEHC_26_1.pdf/pdf#view=fitH
Geographic Focus:Ireland

Facts: The applicant was a national of Nigeria and a Christian who claimed to fear persecution there from Muslims for having impregnated his Muslim girlfriend. He left the locus of his difficulties for Port Harcourt, where his younger brother and his wife refused to let him in. He travelled thence to Lagos and made arrangements to flee. He arrived in … Read More

Principles:

Internal relocation in Nigeria is reasonably open to a Christian man and qualified pharmacist, who fears persecution from Muslims.

Go Back

MA (A Minor) v Refugee Appeals Tribunal and Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Ireland and the Attorney General

adminLeave a Comment

Respondent/Defendant:Refugee Appeals Tribunal and Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Ireland and the Attorney General
Court/s:High Court
Citation/s:[2014] IEHC 28
Nature of Proceedings:Judicial Review
Judgment Date/s:30 Jan 2014
Judge:MacEochaidh J.
Category:Refugee Law
Keywords:Asylum, Persecution, Protection, Protection (Application for International), Refugee
Country of Origin:Nigeria
URL:https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/a7517c02-35fc-4170-a669-fef0a7e8294e/2014_IEHC_28_1.pdf/pdf#view=fitH
Geographic Focus:Ireland

Facts: The applicant was a national of Nigeria who was born in Ireland. Her mother had previously unsuccessfully claimed asylum. She had claimed that her father had raped her because she was a lesbian and that the applicant had been conceived on foot of that. Her claim had been found to lack credibility. She claimed that her daughter would suffer … Read More

Principles:

In deciding whether the “personal circumstances” of an applicant have been taken into account in deciding if internal relocation is reasonable, it is open to the court to consider the extent to which reference is made to them in a decision containing such a finding.  

In deciding that internal relocation is available, it is not necessary in every case to know in what location the applicant last resided in his country of origin, particularly where the applicant fears only a non-state agent or a small group of such persons. A different appraisal might be warranted if the applicant was fleeing political unrest or armed conflict.

Go Back

DE v Refugee Appeals Tribunal

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:[2013] IEHC 304
Nature of Proceedings:Judicial Review
Judgment Date/s:25 Jun 2013
Judge:MacEochaidh J.
Category:Refugee Law
Keywords:Asylum, Asylum (Application for), Asylum application (Examination of an), Geneva Convention & Protocol, Protection, Protection (Application for International), Refugee, Refugee (Convention), Refugee Law
Country of Origin:Ukraine
URL:https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/e64d995a-3bfa-488d-9c7d-c9aafc0690df/2013_IEHC_304_1.pdf/pdf#view=fitH
Geographic Focus:Ireland

Facts The applicants were a married couple and their child from Ukraine. They claimed to fear persecution as a result of the first applicant’s pursuit of corruption allegations against senior military figures in Ukraine. He claimed that he had made complaints orally and in writing and that he had been assaulted by unknown individuals on account of this. He said … Read More

Principles:

A protection decision-maker like the Refugee Appeals Tribunal should not discount the credibility of a subjective claim for protection simply because it is not supported by documentation. Before doing so, it must have regard to reg. 5(3) of the Regulations of 2006 and decide whether or not the conditions set out therein are fulfilled. If they are, then the lack of documentation to support the claim will not have the effect of undermining its credibility.

Go Back

MM v Minister for Justice and Law Reform, Ireland and the Attorney General

adminLeave a Comment

Respondent/Defendant:Minister for Justice and Law Reform, Ireland and the Attorney General
Court/s:High Court
Citation/s:[2013] IEHC 9
Nature of Proceedings:Judicial Review
Judgment Date/s:23 Jan 2013
Judge:Hogan J
Category:Refugee Law
Keywords:Protection, Protection (Application for International), Protection (International), Refugee
Country of Origin:Rwanda
URL:https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/8ccf40d0-4119-477b-be7a-c41c5f81cf2b/2013_IEHC_9_1.pdf/pdf#view=fitH
Geographic Focus:Ireland

Facts The question in these proceedings was the extent to which the Minister is obliged to give an applicant for subsidiary protection a separate opportunity to be heard in respect of his subsidiary protection application in view of the decision of the ECJ in Case C-2 77/2012 MM v Minister for Justice and Law Reform (22 November 2012). The applicant … Read More

Principles:

The duty of cooperation referred to in Article 4(1) of the Qualification Directive does not extend so as to require the decision maker to supply the applicant with a draft of any possible adverse decision for comment prior to its adoption.

When a Member State has chosen (as Ireland has) to establish two separate procedures, one following the other, in view of the fundamental nature of the applicant’s right to be heard, it was important that this right is fully guaranteed in each of the two procedures.  This is all the more justified in a situation where the national authority (the Minister) in giving its reasons for rejecting the application for subsidiary protection refers to a large extent to the reasons already relied upon to reject the asylum application. The conditions for the grant of refugee status and subsidiary protection status are different.

The judgment of the ECJ may imply that it may be necessary to have an oral hearing, but when read in its totality, the ECJ’s judgment cannot be interpreted as meaning that an oral hearing would be routinely required at subsidiary protection stage.

Under the bifurcated Irish asylum and subsidiary protection system, the subsidiary protection application must be considered distinctly and separately from the asylum application. The Minister must decide the subsidiary protection issue without any reliance on the prior reasoning contained in the asylum decision.

For the hearing before the Minister in subsidiary protection applications to be effective, such a hearing should at a minimum involve a procedure whereby:

  1. the applicant is invited to comment on adverse credibility findings made by the Refugee Appeals Tribunal;  
  2. the applicant is given a completely fresh opportunity to revisit all matters bearing on the subsidiary protection claim; and
  3. involve a completely fresh assessment of the applicant’s credibility, and the mere fact that the Refugee Appeals Tribunal ruled adversely on this question is not in itself sufficient and is not even directly relevant to this fresh credibility assessment.
Go Back

HN (Nawaz) v Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform

adminLeave a Comment


Nawaz
Respondent/Defendant:Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform
Court/s:Supreme Court
Citation/s:[2012] IESC 58
Nature of Proceedings:Appeal
Judgment Date/s:19 Dec 2012
Judge:Supreme Court (Fennelly J, O'Donnell J, McKechnie J, Clarke J, MacMenamin J)
Category:Refugee Law
Keywords:Asylum, Geneva Convention & Protocol, Protection, Protection (Application for International), Protection (International), Protection (Person Eligible for Subsidiary), Protection (Subsidiary), Protection Status (Subsidiary), Refugee, Refugee (Convention), Third-Country National
Country of Origin:Pakistan
URL:https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/85c26c9e-adaf-4910-8187-53a056c2c041/2012_IESC_58_1.pdf/pdf#view=fitH
Geographic Focus:Ireland

Facts The applicant was a national of Pakistan and from the Swat Valley. He arrived in Ireland in 2003 on a student visa. He married an Irish national and was granted permission to remain in the State until 2005. The marriage ended and the Minister notified him that his permission to be in the State was not being renewed as … Read More

Principles:

The true question was whether the ‘Qualification Directive’ required Member States, in their implementing measures, to make it possible for a third country national to make an application for subsidiary protection without making any application for refugee status. 

In order to determine whether the Minister was obliged to consider the applicant’s application for subsidiary protection in the absence of a determination that he was not entitled to refugee status, it was necessary to establish whether it is compatible with the ‘Qualification Directive’ for Irish law to provide that an application for Subsidiary protection will not be considered unless the applicant has already applied for and been refused refugee status. 

For this purpose the Supreme Court referred the following question to the European Court of Justice for preliminary ruling in accordance with Article 267 TFEU:

“Does Council Directive 2004/83/EC, interpreted in the light of the principle of good administration in the law of the European Union and, in particular, as provided for by Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, permit a Member State, to provide in its law that an application for subsidiary protection status can be considered only if the applicant has applied for and been refused refugee status in accordance with national law?”

Go Back

MM v Minister for Justice and Law Reform, Ireland and the Attorney General

adminLeave a Comment


MM
Court/s:ECJ
Citation/s:Case C-277/11
Nature of Proceedings:Judgment of the ECJ on a preliminary reference from the Irish High Court (Hogan J) pursuant to Article 267 TFEU
Judgment Date/s:22 Nov 2012
Judge:ECJ
Category:Refugee Law
Keywords:Asylum, Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Common European Asylum System (CEAS), Protection, Protection (Application for International), Protection (Subsidiary), Refugee
Country of Origin:Rwanda
URL:http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=130241&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=1029079
Geographic Focus:Europe

Facts The ECJ gave judgment on a preliminary reference by the High Court in the context of judicial review proceedings challenging the decision of the Minister refusing the applicant’s application for subsidiary protection. In essence, the question referred by the High Court was: does the requirement to cooperate with the applicant for subsidiary protection, following a refusal to grant refugee … Read More

Principles:

The requirement on a Member State to cooperate with an applicant per Article 4(1), second sentence, cannot be interpreted to mean that, where a foreign national requests subsidiary protection status after he has been refused refugee status and the competent national authority is minded to reject that second application as well, the authority is obliged – before adopting its decision – to inform the applicant that it proposes to reject his application and notify him of the arguments on which it intends to base its rejection, so as to enable him to make his views known.

However, in the case of a system where there are two separate procedures, one after the other, for examining applications for refugee status and applications for subsidiary protection, it is for the national court to ensure the applicant’s fundamental rights are observed in each of these procedures, particularly the right to be heard in the sense that the applicant must be able to make his views known before any decision is adopted that does not grant the protection requested. The fact that the applicant has already been duly heard when his application for refugee status was examined does not mean that that procedural requirement may be dispensed with in the procedure relating to the application for subsidiary protection.

Go Back

VJ (Moldova) v Minister for Justice and Equality

adminLeave a Comment

Respondent/Defendant:Minister for Justice and Equality
Court/s:High Court
Citation/s:[2012] IEHC 337
Nature of Proceedings:Judicial Review
Judgment Date/s:31 Jul 2012
Judge:Cooke J
Category:Deportation, Refugee Law
Keywords:Asylum, Deportation, Protection, Protection (Application for International), Protection (International), Protection (Subsidiary), Refugee, Return, Return Decision, Returnee
Country of Origin:Moldova
URL:https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/cf2952a2-d160-46c2-a64b-d7680ae940c0/2012_IEHC_337_1.pdf/pdf#view=fitH
Geographic Focus:Ireland

Facts The applicant was a national of Molova who applied for asylum in the State and was unsuccessful. He was also refused subsidiary protection and a deportation order was made against him. The applicant argued inter alia that the process by which the subsidiary protection scheme operated in Ireland with the deportation/leave to remain procedure was in breach of EU … Read More

Principles:

It is arguable that:

“By confining the right to apply for subsidiary protection to the circumstance in which the asylum seeker’s entitlement to remain lawfully in the State pursuant to s. 9(2) of the Refugee Act 1996, has expired and a decision has been taken to propose the deportation of the applicant under section 3(3) of the Immigration Act 1999, Regulation 4(1) of the 2006 Regulations in conjunction with s. 3 of the said Act of 1999, has the effect of imposing a precondition or disadvantage upon a subsidiary protection applicant which is ultra vires Council Directive 2004/83/EC of the 29th April, 2004, and is incompatible with general principles of European Union law.”

Go Back

MLTT (Cameroon) v Minister for Justice , Equality and Law Reform & Refugee Appeals Tribunal

adminLeave a Comment

Respondent/Defendant:Minister for Justice , Equality and Law Reform & Refugee Appeals Tribunal
Court/s:High Court
Citation/s:[2012] IEHC 568
Nature of Proceedings:Judicial Review
Judgment Date/s:27 Jun 2012
Judge:Clark J
Category:Refugee Law
Keywords:Asylum, Asylum application (Examination of an), Geneva Convention & Protocol, Protection, Protection (Application for International), Refugee, Refugee (Convention), Refugee Law
Country of Origin:Cameroon
URL:https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/a8f33703-323c-49c0-bcb0-253dc5df3567/2012_IEHC_568_1.pdf/pdf#view=fitH
Geographic Focus:Ireland

Facts The applicant was a national of Cameroon and claimed refugee status on the basis of a well founded fear of persecution arising out of his involvement as a student in political demonstrations which were suppressed by the authorities and several students had been killed, others arrested and female students raped. The applicant claimed he was arrested and detained in … Read More

Principles:

It is well established as a matter of international law and domestic refugee law that the test for determining whether a person is a refugee is forward looking. The principle that the decision maker may look to the past as a guide to what is likely to occur in the future but the past is not determinative was consistently accepted and applied.

Where an applicant’s core claim is accepted the Tribunal is bound to give consideration to and ought to go on to ask whether the applicant has a well founded fear of persecution if returned to his country of origin, in the light of accepted past experiences and to objective country information. The Tribunal must apply a forward looking test when assessing whether the applicant had a well founded fear of persecution.

Go Back

CB (DR Congo) v Refugee Appeals Tribunal

adminLeave a Comment


DR Congo
Respondent/Defendant:Refugee Appeals Tribunal
Court/s:High Court
Citation/s:[2012] IEHC 487
Nature of Proceedings:Judicial Review
Judgment Date/s:26 Jun 2012
Judge:Clark J
Category:Refugee Law
Keywords:Asylum (Application for), Asylum application (Examination of an), Country of Nationality, Country of Origin Information, Gender, Geneva Convention & Protocol, Nationality, Persecution, Persecution (Acts of), Protection (Application for International), Refugee, Refugee (Convention), Refugee Law, Sex
Country of Origin:Democratic Republic of Congo (DR Congo)
URL:https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/99f30cf3-a5d8-4363-a135-9f214e3da2a1/2012_IEHC_487_1.pdf/pdf#view=fitH
Geographic Focus:Ireland

Facts The applicant was a national of the Democratic Republic of Congo (DR Congo). She claimed that she came from South Kivu province in eastern DR Congo and that she had suffered arrest, detention, beating and rape because of her activities in organising a small informal group whose purpose was to educate people about rape and warn against the activities … Read More

Principles:

It is arguable that where specific elements of a claim are not specifically rejected and there is well documented evidence of gender-based persecution, on which submissions are put to the Tribunal, it ought to apply a forward looking assessment of risk, based on the elements inter alia of gender and nationality.

The Tribunal must investigate or assess the possible risk to an applicant as a member of a particular social group, where there is information that gender is a relevant contributory factor in sexual violence suffered by women and that such violence has a differential impact on women.

Go Back

Debisi v Minister for Justice and Law Reform

adminLeave a Comment

Respondent/Defendant:Minister for Justice and Law Reform
Court/s:High Court
Citation/s:2nd February, Unreported
Nature of Proceedings:Judicial Review
Judgment Date/s:02 Feb 2012
Judge:Cooke J
Category:Refugee Law
Keywords:Asylum application (Examination of an), Deportation, Deportation Order, Protection (Application for International), Protection Status (Subsidiary), Refugee, Removal, Removal Order
Country of Origin:Nigeria
URL:https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/a7137d48-a7be-4ce0-ad03-81fe704b3670/2012_IEHC_44_1.pdf/pdf#view=fitH
Geographic Focus:Ireland

The applicant had been refused asylum by the Refugee Applications Commissioner, and withdrew his appeal to the Refugee appeals Tribunal on the basis that his fear of serious harm in Nigeria was not one with a Convention nexus. His subsequent application for subsidiary protection, which was based on the same facts as his asylum claim, purported to reject the Commissioner’s … Read More

Principles:

There is no obligation on the Minister to reconsider a subsidiary protection applicant’s credibility in the absence of new evidence, information or other basis capable of demonstrating that the original findings were vitiated by material error on the part of the decision maker.

It may be that the fair procedures require the Minister for Justice to interview an applicant for subsidiary protection who seeks to rely upon a risk of harm from a source not previously considered in the asylum process. The deportation process is interrupted by the requirement to determine the subsidiary protection application. It is in the sense of resuming or continuing the procedure initiated with the notification of the deportation proposal that the words ‘proceed to consider’ are used in Regulation 4(5) of the European Community (Eligibility for Protection) Regulations 2006.

The work done by officials in the Department of Justice in preparing an examination of file re deportation is preparatory work only, and may be undertaken before a subsidiary protection application is determined. The Minister remains entirely free to make his own judgment on the case.

Go Back

SA (Algeria) v Refugee Appeals Tribunal

adminLeave a Comment

Respondent/Defendant:Refugee Appeals Tribunal
Court/s:High Court
Citation/s:[2012] IEHC 78
Nature of Proceedings:Judicial Review
Judgment Date/s:24 Jan 2012
Category:Refugee Law
Keywords:Asylum (Application for), Asylum application (Examination of an), Geneva Convention & Protocol, Persecution, Persecution (Acts of), Protection (Application for International), Refugee, Refugee Law, Refugee Status
Country of Origin:Algeria
URL:https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/93608601-8979-4e5c-a362-1102a6476ade/2012_IEHC_78_1.pdf/pdf#view=fitH
Geographic Focus:Ireland

Facts The applicant was an Algerian national and homosexual. He claimed refugee status on the basis of a well  founded fear of persecution for the Refugee Convention reason of membership of a particular social group based on sexual orientation. He was refused by the Refugee Appeals Tribunal inter alia on the basis that he had not suffered any specific act … Read More

Principles:

It is an error to suggest that international protection will be available only where the applicant has actually suffered persecution in the past. The Geneva Convention protects those who can show they have a well founded fear of persecution and the test is essentially forward looking. The question is whether there is a well founded fear that persecution may occur if the claimant is returned to his country of origin.

The fundamental question is whether the applicant is likely to have to endure a severe violation of his basic human rights if he is returned to his country of origin within the definition of persecution in Article 9(1)(a) of the Qualification Directive.

Homosexuals form part of a social group for the purpose of the Refugee Convention, and sexual orientation is an intrinsic and immutable feature of human identity. A homosexual cannot be expected to sublimate or conceal their very identity in order to escape persecution by the state or societal forces condoned by the state.

While a failure to claim asylum at the first opportunity normally goes to the overall credibility of an applicant and may indicate a claim is not genuine, a claimant who might otherwise have a valid entitlement to international protection may be not be disbarred simply by reason of his failure to claim asylum at an earlier opportunity in a different country, where he is otherwise generally credible.

Go Back