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

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

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

A.S.A. v Minister for Justice and Equality

EMNireland


ASA v Minister for Justice and Equality
Respondent/Defendant:Minister for Justice and Equality
Court/s:High Court, Supreme Court
Nature of Proceedings:Judicial Review
Judgment Date/s:24 Nov 2022
Judge: MacMenamin J.
Category:Asylum, Refugee Law
Keywords:Asylum Applicant, Carltona Principle, Deportation, Leave to Remain, Protection (International), Return
Country of Origin:Nigeria
URL:www.courts.ie/view/judgments/b76af74a-fd59-4100-9a63-31b836b1eeed/de05c437-f17e-47ad-a7d9-893981bb5f42/2022_IESC_49.pdf/pdf

 Facts: The appellant was a national of Nigeria. He submitted an application for international protection in 2016, which was unsuccessful. The appellant was informed that an International Protection Officer (IPO) had recommended he not be granted refugee status or subsidiary protection pursuant to section 39 of the International Protection Act 2015. He was subsequently informed that the Minister for Justice … Read More

Principles:There is no conflict of roles or functions exists between an international protection officer in their role in the international protection procedure, and an officer of the Minister in their role in permission to remain decisions under section 49 of the 2015 Act.
Go Back

A, S and I v Minister for Justice

adminLeave a Comment

Respondent/Defendant:Minister for Justice
Court/s:Supreme Court
Citation/s:[2020] IESC 70
Nature of Proceedings:Judicial review/appeal
Judgment Date/s:08 Dec 2020
Judge:Dunne E
Category:Refugee Law
Keywords:Child (Separated), Family (Nuclear), Family Unity (Right to), Protection (International), Refugee
Country of Origin:Afghanistan, Iraq, Nigeria
URL:https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/d0eae3ec-52c2-41af-8f01-f97a34a2d5ab/2020_IESC_70_Dunne%20J.pdf/pdf#view=fitH

Facts: The first and second applicants were recognised refugees whose applications for family reunification with their wives were refused on the basis that their marriages took place after they had applied for international protection. They challenged the constitutionality and/or ECHR compatibility of section 56(9)(a) of the International Protection Act 2015 (which limits the right of family reunification to spouses where … Read More

Principles:The limitation of the right to family reunification to spouses whose marriages took place prior to submission of an application for international protection was neither unconstitutional nor in breach of the ECHR. The absolute 12 month time limit for submission of an application for family reunification was neither unconstitutional nor in breach of the ECHR.
Go Back

SO v Refugee Appeals Tribunal

adminLeave a Comment

Respondent/Defendant:Refugee Appeals Tribunal
Court/s:High Court
Citation/s:[2017] IEHC 255
Nature of Proceedings:Judicial Review
Judgment Date/s:27 Apr 2017
Judge:Keane D.
Category:Refugee Law
Keywords:Protection (International), Refugee, Refugee Law
Country of Origin:Guinea
URL:https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/1185c326-a62a-4965-915e-bcd7e301145a/2017_IEHC_255_1.pdf/pdf#view=fitH
Geographic Focus:Other

Facts: The applicant was a Guinean national who applied for refugee status in the State. She claimed to have worked as a secretary in the accounting/finance department of the Guinean National Assembly, and that she fled Guinea after a military coup fearing persecution. Her application was refused at first instance and on appeal. Although the Tribunal accepted her general credibility, … Read More

Principles:

This decision provides guidance to protection decision-makers dealing with claims based on imputed political opinion and the correct approach to risk assessment in such cases.

Go Back

GC v Minister for Justice

adminLeave a Comment

Respondent/Defendant:Minister for Justice
Court/s:High Court
Citation/s:[2017] IEHC 215
Nature of Proceedings:Judicial Review
Judgment Date/s:04 Apr 2017
Judge:O’Regan M.
Category:EU Treaty Rights
Keywords:EU Treaty Rights, Free Movement, Freedom of Movement (Right to), Protection (International), Removal Order
Country of Origin:Romania
URL:https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/22a7c887-3ca6-4a73-b5c3-5944bd0c9dab/2017_IEHC_215_1.pdf/pdf#view=fitH
Geographic Focus:Other

Facts: The applicant was a Romanian citizen who had permanent residence in Ireland. In 2015 he was convicted of assault and sentenced to three years and six months in prison with the final two years suspended. The Minister subsequently issued a removal order in respect of the applicant together with a three year exclusion order. The applicant instituted proceedings challenging … Read More

Principles:

This decision establishes that a decision-maker is not obliged as a general rule to conduct his or her own investigations in order to establish the authenticity of a document relied on by an applicant for international protection.

Go Back

Dancqua v Minister for Justice (No.2)

adminLeave a Comment

Respondent/Defendant:Minister for Justice
Citation/s:[2017] IECA 20
Nature of Proceedings:Appeal
Judgment Date/s:06 Feb 2017
Judge:Hogan G.
Category:Refugee Law
Keywords:Protection (International), Refugee
Country of Origin:Ghana
URL:https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/04f395ec-dd20-47e6-93d0-f0e7640baf00/2017_IECA_20_1.pdf/pdf#view=fitH
Geographic Focus:Other

Facts: The applicant was a Ghanaian national who applied for refugee status in 2010 which was refused following a decision of the Refugee Appeal Tribunal in January 2011. She applied for subsidiary protection on 8 October 2013. By decision dated 5 November 2013 the Minister for Justice and Equality refused to entertain this application for subsidiary protection, contending that she … Read More

Principles:

This decision established that the 15 day administrative deadline for submission of applications for subsidiary protection in Ireland was in breach of EU law.

Go Back

Luximon v Minister for Justice

adminLeave a Comment

Respondent/Defendant:Minister for Justice
Citation/s:[2016] IECA 382
Nature of Proceedings:Judicial Review
Judgment Date/s:15 Dec 2016
Judge:Finlay Geoghegan J.
Category:Residence
Keywords:Immigration, Protection (International), Regularisation, Residence, Residence Permit, Student
Country of Origin:Mauritius
URL:https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/8fa3faf7-d874-4a36-914c-4354fad01088/2016_IECA_382_1.pdf/pdf#view=fitH
Geographic Focus:Other

Facts: The applicant was a Mauritian citizen who came to Ireland in July 2006 on an student permission. This permission was renewed  from time to time until June 2012. In October 2012 she applied for a change of status to regularise her position in the State, which would effectively allow her continue to reside in Ireland without the requirement that … Read More

Principles:

The decision in Luximon confirms that the provisions of the Irish Constitution regarding private and family life rights and similar rights under Article 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights must be considered by the Minister when assessing an application for change of immigration status under section 4(7) of the Immigration Act 2004.

Go Back

TSS v Refugee Appeals Tribunal

adminLeave a Comment

Respondent/Defendant:Refugee Appeals Tribunal
Court/s:High Court
Citation/s:[2016] IEHC 491
Nature of Proceedings:Judicial Review
Judgment Date/s:29 Jul 2016
Judge:Humphreys R.
Category:Refugee Law
Keywords:Protection (International), Protection (Subsidiary), Refugee
Country of Origin:Zimbabwe
URL:https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/b0017c7e-c776-46d6-b5f2-0bc355a8604b/2016_IEHC_491_1.pdf/pdf#view=fitH
Geographic Focus:Other

Facts: The applicant was born in Zimbabwe in 1987. He was the victim of a kidnapping and beatings by government supporters in the Misulongo area. He came to Ireland in June 2008 and applied for asylum. This was refused by the Refugee Applications Commissioner and on appeal by the Refugee Appeals Tribunal. He then applied for subsidiary protection, which was … Read More

Principles:

The decision in TSS is significant as it provides guidance to decision-makers on the two step test that must be applied in protection decisions based on a finding that there is an internal protection alternative.

Go Back

BDR v Refugee Appeals Tribunal

adminLeave a Comment

Respondent/Defendant:Refugee Appeals Tribunal
Court/s:High Court
Citation/s:[2016] IEHC 274
Nature of Proceedings:Judicial Review
Judgment Date/s:25 May 2016
Judge:Faherty M.
Category:Refugee Law
Keywords:Asylum, Protection (International), Refugee, Refugee Law, Stateless Person
Country of Origin:Bhutan
URL:https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/61b87a1a-bde6-4b76-93c2-9c03819acb17/2016_IEHC_274_1.pdf/pdf#view=fitH
Geographic Focus:Other

Facts: The applicant was born in Bhutan to parents of Nepalese ethnicity. He claimed he had been denied citizenship of Bhutan because of his ethnicity and that his family home had been attacked and his parents killed. He subsequently left Bhutan and went to live in India where he lived for a number of years, before ultimately arranging with a … Read More

Principles:

The decision in BDR establishes that a stateless asylum seeker with more than one country of former habitual residence is not required to prove a well founded fear of persecution in every country of former habitual residence in order to be recognised as a refugee. It is sufficient that the asylum seeker has a well founded fear in one country of former habitual residence and that the asylum seeker is unable or unwilling to return to any of the other countries of former habitual residence. 

Go Back

ZK 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
Nature of Proceedings:Judicial Review
Judgment Date/s:19 Nov 2014
Judge:McDermott J.
Category:Refugee Law
Keywords:Asylum, Country of Origin Information, Persecution, Protection (International), Refugee
URL:https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/8b890159-5a9d-4ba5-831a-5d5b52c68fd7/2014_IEHC_543_1.pdf/pdf#view=fitH
Geographic Focus:Ireland

Facts: The applicant was a Georgian national who arrived in Ireland and sought asylum. He claimed to fear persecution in Georgia on the basis of his homosexuality. He claimed that he had suffered discrimination and persecution there in the past, which culminated in an attack which resulted in his being injured and his partner killed. He said that the police … Read More

Principles:

Where an applicant for international protection claims to be in fear of persecution or serious harm on the ground that he is homosexual, then a clear finding must be made by a protection decision-maker as to whether or not that claim is believed.

Where it is alleged that the state condones the persecution of or infliction of serious harm on homosexuals, then a decision-maker must examine whether or not country of origin information supports that claim. If such a decision-maker wishes to prefer one piece of country of origin information over another when ruling on that question, it must give logical reasons for doing so.
[2014] IEHC 543.

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

Adegbuyi v Minister for Justice and Law Reform

adminLeave a Comment

Respondent/Defendant:Minister for Justice and Law Reform
Court/s:High Court
Citation/s:[2012] IEHC 484, 1 November 2012
Nature of Proceedings:Appeal
Judgment Date/s:01 Nov 2012
Judge:Clark J
Category:Refugee Law
Keywords:Asylum, Geneva Convention & Protocol, Protection, Protection (International), Refugee, Refugee Status, Refugee Status (Withdrawal of)
Country of Origin:Nigeria
URL:https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/e6e0e80d-bd58-4c2a-b34d-b1d7570a590b/2012_IEHC_484_1.pdf/pdf#view=fitH
Geographic Focus:Ireland

Facts The applicant had been recognised as a refugee in 2007. In late 2007 and 2008 information came to the Minister’s attention which caused him concern as to the applicant’s need for international protection. The applicant had originally been recognised as a refugee arising out of a criminal case involving a colleague at Lagos State University (LASU) who, it was … Read More

Principles:

In determining the validity of revocations of refugee status under Section 21(5) of the Refugee Act 1996 the Court is exercising an appellate function and determining whether or not the decision is wrong, and not a review function as to whether or not the decision is lawful. The correct approach to appeals under section 21(5) is to consider the revocation appeal on all of the information put before the court. The court is not confined to the information which was before the Minister. Under section 21(5) the Court may substitute its own reasons for those given by the Minister.

Section 21(1)(h) (and its corresponding provisions in Regulation 11(2)(b) of the European Communities (Eligibility for Protection) Regulations 2006 and Article 14(3)(b) of the Qualification Directive) has no equivalent in the Geneva Convention.   These provisions operate where evidence emerges that the person should never have been granted refugee status, and refugee declaration is invalidated and is void ab initio.

Section 21(1) must be read together with Regulation 11(2) of the 2006 Regulations, which was designed to give effect to Article 14(3) of the Qualification Directive.  Regulation 11(2)(a)  removed the Minister’s discretion to revoke refugee status under Section 21(1), and made revocation mandatory under all sub-sections except Section 21(1)(g).

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