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 His application for asylum was deemed withdrawn after the applicant left direct provision accommodation without a … Read More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

AO v Refugee Appeals Tribunal

adminLeave a Comment

Respondent/Defendant:Refugee Appeals Tribunal
Citation/s:[2017] IECA 51
Nature of Proceedings:Appeal
Judgment Date/s:27 Feb 2017
Judge:Hogan G.
Category:Refugee Law
Keywords:Protection, Protection (Actors of), Refugee, Refugee Law
Country of Origin:Nigeria
URL:https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/60f58660-ca51-428a-9c4c-2ba6a53d7276/2017_IECA_51_1.pdf/pdf#view=fitH
Geographic Focus:Other

Facts: The applicant was a Nigerian national who was born in May 1991. She arrived in the State on 9 January 2007 when she was 15 years old and applied for asylum. The applicant claimed to been threatened with forced marriage and attempted rape. She said she was given assistance by the African Refugee Foundation (“AREF”) before ultimately leaving Nigeria. … 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

JA 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 342
Nature of Proceedings:Judicial Review
Judgment Date/s:19 May 2015
Judge:Faherty J.
Category:Refugee Law
Keywords:Protection, Refugee
Country of Origin:Pakistan
URL:https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/ba0ad634-4069-4b28-b4eb-d7c945d4fc83/2015_IEHC_342_1.pdf/pdf#view=fitH
Geographic Focus:Ireland

Facts: The applicant was a national of Pakistan who claimed asylum in Ireland on the basis that he had become involved in a land dispute with his cousin. He claimed that, in the course of the dispute, his cousin menaced him with a gun, but that he disarmed him and shot and wounded him. He then fled, fearing arrest, and … Read More

Principles:

A claim for refugee status will fail if there is no convention nexus within the meaning of s. 2 of the Refugee Act 1996, or if the applicant can access state protection in his or her country of origin.

Go Back

NO v Refugee Appeals Tribunal and Minister for Justice and Equality

adminLeave a Comment

Respondent/Defendant:Refugee Appeals Tribunal and Minister for Justice and Equality
Court/s:High Court
Citation/s:[2014] IEHC 509
Nature of Proceedings:Judicial Review
Judgment Date/s:02 Oct 2014
Judge:Barr J.
Category:Refugee Law
Keywords:Asylum, Country of Origin Information, Protection, Refugee
Country of Origin:Nigeria
URL:https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/5a69d0e6-6550-4bdb-aa0c-5094b830dd5b/2014_IEHC_509_1.pdf/pdf#view=fitH
Geographic Focus:Ireland

Facts: The applicant was a national of Nigeria. He met his wife as a university student in 1999. He began to experience problems in 2005 when she was told that she could no longer associate with him because she had been promised, by way of a forced marriage, to a man named Alhaji Musa Abu, who had paid a price … Read More

Principles:

A state is to be presumed capable of protecting its citizens, in the absence of clear and convincing evidence to the contrary. Where country of origin information and, moreover, police reports specific to the applicant’s claim show a willingness on the part of the police to protect him, a protection decision-maker will be entitled to conclude that state protection is available to him.

In a judicial review of a protection decision-maker’s decision, an applicant will not be entitled to rely upon country of origin information which has not been before the decision-maker.

Where a decision contains two bases for rejecting an applicant’s protection claim, only one of which is valid, the court is entitled to sever the invalid finding and thereby uphold the decision.

Go Back

KT (Georgia) v Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Attorney General and Ireland

adminLeave a Comment

Respondent/Defendant:Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Attorney General and Ireland
Court/s:High Court
Citation/s:[2014] IEHC 26
Nature of Proceedings:Judicial Review
Judgment Date/s:28 Mar 2014
Judge:Barr J.
Category:Deportation
Keywords:Country of Origin Information, Deportation, Deportation Order, Protection
Country of Origin:Georgia
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 citizen of Georgia who claimed to have suffered persecution there on account of his political activities. He said that he fled in 1993 to Azerbaijan, where he remained until 1994, when an amnesty was issued by the Georgian government allowing Georgians who were politically active to return. He then continued his political activities but experienced … Read More

Principles:

Country of origin information which discloses significant positive changes to the police and judicial system of an applicant’s country of origin will enable a conclusion to be drawn that state protection and a fair trial would be available to an applicant there, if needed.

Go Back

HO v Refugee Appeals Tribunal, Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Ireland and the Attorney General

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:[2014] IEHC 144
Nature of Proceedings:Judicial Review
Judgment Date/s:21 Mar 2014
Judge:MacEochaidh J.
Category:Refugee Law
Keywords:Asylum, Asylum application (Examination of an), Persecution, Protection, Refugee, Refugee (Convention), Refugee Law, Refugee Status
Country of Origin:Nigeria
URL:https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/303cb1ac-fc49-4701-aba7-a1bc537d6f74/2014_IEHC_144_1.pdf/pdf#view=fitH
Geographic Focus:Ireland

Facts: The applicant, a national of Nigeria, was granted leave to seek judicial review of a decision of the Refugee Appeals Tribunal refusing her asylum. She claimed to have a well-founded fear of persecution on the grounds of membership of a particular social group and religion. She claimed that her problems began after she became pregnant. Her boyfriend was a … Read More

Principles:

Inherent inconsistencies and unresolved contradictions in an asylum applicant's narrative will likely lead to an adverse finding on credibility. An applicant’s failure to go to the police, in circumstances where its protection might reasonably have been forthcoming, means that he or she cannot validly claim to be a refugee.

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

JG and WM (Czech Republic) v Refugee Applications Commissioner and Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform

adminLeave a Comment

Respondent/Defendant:Refugee Applications Commissioner and Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform
Court/s:High Court
Citation/s:[2013] IEHC 248
Nature of Proceedings:Judicial Review
Judgment Date/s:17 Apr 2013
Judge:McDermott J.
Category:Refugee Law
Keywords:Asylum, Asylum (Application for), Geneva Convention & Protocol, Persecution, Protection, Refugee, Refugee in transit
Country of Origin:Angola and Democratic Republic of Congo
URL:https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/c0fd25c0-9d85-48de-bf4e-3bce483be008/2013_IEHC_248_1.pdf/pdf#view=fitH
Geographic Focus:Ireland

Facts The first applicant in this case was a recognised refugee in the Czech Republic since 1998. He subsequently arrived in Ireland and applied for a declaration of refugee status. He stated that he had refugee status in the Czech Republic in 1998 but had subsequently been mistreated by that state or by non-state actors, including skinheads, acting with its … Read More

Principles:

Applications for asylum made by persons recognised as refugees in third countries based on alleged persecution in those countries are not admissible for processing in Ireland in the absence of cogent evidence that those countries afforded them no protection. This will be particularly where the third country in question is a Member State of the European Union and, as such a signatory to the European Convention on Human Rights and, in most cases, bound by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and subject to the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice of the European Union.

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

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

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

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

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