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 His application for asylum was deemed withdrawn after the applicant left direct provision accommodation without a … Read More
AAL v International Protection Appeals Tribunal, Minister for Justice and Equality, Ireland and the Attorney General
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 |
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. |