AAH & MAH v International Protection Appeals Tribunal & ors

EMNireland

Respondent/Defendant:International Protection Appeals Tribunal, The Minister for Justice and Equality, Ireland and the Attorney General
Court/s:High Court
Citation/s:[2024] IEHC 699
Nature of Proceedings:Judicial review
Judgment Date/s:06 Dec 2024
Judge:Phelan, S.
Category:Refugee Law
Keywords:Asylum Applicant, Asylum Applicant (Secondary Movement of), Beneficiary of international protection, Common European Asylum System (CEAS), European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), Refoulement (Non-)
Country of Origin:Somalia
URL:https://www.courts.ie/view/judgments/71642df7-af13-4ef1-a0f3-fae0d554ceb0/d1c6f144-78fd-477a-97f1-70266ae13bbf/2024_IEHC_699.pdf/pdf

Facts: The applicants were both Somali nationals who had been granted international protection in Greece and subsequently travelled to Ireland and applied for international protection in the State. Their applications were deemed inadmissible under section 21(9), International Protection Act 2015. The applicants contested the inadmissibility recommendations on the grounds that conditions in Greece are such that they result in destitution, … Read More

Principles:The principle of mutual trust means a presumption that beneficiaries of international protection will be treated in accordance with the Charter, the ECHR and international human rights law in all EU Member States. The burden of proof lies with the applicant to rebut this presumption and the risk of inhuman or degrading treatment must be of a particularly high severity to prevent return. The assessment by the decision-maker must be individualised, save for where there is a situation such as armed conflict or a humanitarian disaster. Interviews conducted as part of the sections 13 and 15 processes are sufficient in meeting the requirement for an oral stage.
Go Back

MAH v Minister for Justice

adminLeave a Comment

Respondent/Defendant:Minister for Justice
Court/s:High Court
Citation/s:[2021] IEHC 302
Nature of Proceedings:Judicial Review
Judgment Date/s:30 Apr 2021
Judge:Burns T
Category:Deportation
Keywords:Asylum, Country of Origin Information, Deportation Order, European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), Refoulement (Non-), Refugee
Country of Origin:Somalia
URL:https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/62760bea-78ce-44be-a54a-e592ecbb8bd0/2020_IEHC_302.pdf/pdf#view=fitH

Facts: The applicant was a Somali national who had studied medicine in Ukraine. Upon completion of her studies, she returned to Somalia where she worked as a junior doctor. During this time, the applicant was subjected to threats from a fundamentalist group and so she fled to Ukraine through renewing her student visa. Upon the expiry of her student visa, … Read More

Principles:In making a deportation order, the Minister for Justice was obliged to consider whether country of origin information was capable of rebutting of the presumption that another Member State upholds fundamental rights. The Minister for Justice was not entitled to dismiss an applicant’ s employment prospects on the basis that she did not hold a work permit or immigration permission.
Go Back

ASA v the Minister for Justice

admin


ASA v the Minister for Justice
Respondent/Defendant:The Minister for Justice
Court/s:High Court
Citation/s:[2021] IEHC 275
Nature of Proceedings:Judicial Review
Judgment Date/s:16 Apr 2021
Judge:Burns T.
Category:International protection
Keywords:Carltona Principle, Permission to Remain, Refoulement (Non-)
Country of Origin:Nigeria
URL:https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/d9198a1f-e94f-4dc6-924a-ee691a423831/2021_IEHC_276.pdf/pdf#view=fitH

Facts: The applicant, a Nigerian national, applied for international protection in Ireland in 2018. It was recommended that he not be granted refugee status or subsidiary protection status, and also not be granted permission to remain in the State under section 49 of the International Protection Act 2015. The applicant brought judicial review proceedings challenging the manner in which s. … Read More

Principles:The role of an International Protection Officer in taking a decision on permission to remain under section 49 of the International Protection Act 2015 is in line with the Carltona principle and does not conflict with their duties in taking a decision on refugee status and subsidiary protection status.
Go Back

YY v Minister for Justice and Equality

adminLeave a Comment

Respondent/Defendant:Minister for Justice and Equality
Court/s:Supreme Court
Citation/s:[2017] IESC 61
Nature of Proceedings:Judicial Review
Judgment Date/s:27 Jul 2017
Judge:O’Donnell D.
Category:Deportation
Keywords:Deportation, Deportation Order, European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), Refoulement (Non-)
URL:https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/dca55e04-1f20-4b13-9fe3-10949b991711/2017_IESC_61_1.pdf/pdf#view=fitH
Geographic Focus:Other

Facts: The applicant was an Algerian national who was granted refugee status in Ireland on 15 July 1997 on the basis of false documentation. He was granted travel documentation on 10 October 2000, which allowed him to leave Ireland and commit multiple offences abroad. The applicant was convicted of a number of terrorism related offences in France and sentenced to … Read More

Principles:

The Minister is obliged to consider the principle of non-refoulement under s.5 of the Refugee Act 1996, as informed by the case law of the European Court of Human Rights in respect of article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights, when deciding  whether an individual can be deported  under s.3 of the Immigration Act 1999. The test to be applied was whether there were substantial grounds for believing that there was a real risk of torture or inhuman or degrading treatment, and if so a person could not be surrendered, deported or expelled to such a country.  The guarantee under article 3 was absolute and applied in all circumstances. Accordingly, although the consequence of refusing deportation or expulsion was that the applicant would remain within the contracting state, it was irrelevant that there might be compelling national security reasons for expulsion from the state.

While the Minister was not required to notify the applicant of any mainstream country of origin information relied on in the decision, obscure material that was going to materially change the picture appearing from the basic and universal material should however be notified.

Go Back

PIMK (Pakistan) 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 535
Nature of Proceedings:Judicial Review
Judgment Date/s:25 Nov 2014
Judge:Eagar J.
Category:Refugee Law
Keywords:Asylum, Asylum (Application for), Persecution, Refoulement (Non-), Refugee, Refugee Law
Country of Origin:Pakistan
URL:http://www.courts.ie/Judgments.nsf/0/ECC98E5F7D0F73A580257DB10043287C
Geographic Focus:Ireland

Facts:The applicant was a citizen of Pakistan who arrived in Ireland in 2010 and applied for asylum. He claimed to be an Ahmadi Muslim and to have suffered persecution there on account of his religious beliefs, having been targeted by a man who was a follower of a hardline Sunni group who wanted to take his money and land. He … Read More

Principles:

Where a protection decision-maker expresses clear reasons in a decision for refusing an application for protection, the court has no entitlement to substitute its decision for that of the decision-maker in any judicial review of the decision.

Go Back

Afolabi v Minister for Justice and Equality

adminLeave a Comment

Respondent/Defendant:Minister for Justice and Equality et al
Court/s:High Court
Nature of Proceedings:High Court of Ireland; Inter Partes; Application for Leave for Judicial Review
Judgment Date/s:17 May 2012
Judge:Cooke J
Category:Deportation
Keywords:Country of Origin (Safe), Deportation, Deportation Order, Protection (Subsidiary), Refoulement (Non-)
Country of Origin:Nigeria
URL:https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/2fd5f6ec-b197-495c-88c2-332e1f82a41d/2012_IEHC_192_1.pdf/pdf#view=fitH
Geographic Focus:Ireland

Facts The applicants, a mother and her three children, Nigerian nationals, sought to challenge their negative subsidiary protection decisions and deportation orders on various grounds, including that the Minister failed to cooperate with the applicants by giving them a draft of the subsidiary protection decision, and that the applicants did not have an effective remedy against that decision for want … Read More

Principles:

It is arguable that deportation orders are invalid where the Minister has not having personally considered whether the State’s non refoulement obligations would be breached by the deportation of the applicants.

Go Back

Ejerenwa v Governor of Cloverhill Prison

emnadmin

Respondent/Defendant:Governor of Cloverhill Prison
Court/s:Supreme Court
Citation/s:2011 IESC 41, 28th October 2011, Unreported
Nature of Proceedings:Article 40.4.2 Enquiry
Judgment Date/s:28 Oct 2011
Judge:Denham C.J.
Category:Deportation, Detention
Keywords:Asylum Seeker, Border Crossing, Deportation, Detainee, Detention, Entry (Illegal), Nationality, Non-EU National, Non-national, Refoulement, Refoulement (Non-), Removal, Removal Order, Third-Country National, Third-Country national found to be illegally present
Country of Origin:Contested
URL:https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/e9112918-ca1e-4951-b432-19ca4e38ba69/2011_IESC_41_1.pdf/pdf#view=fitH
Geographic Focus:Ireland

This case involved an appeal to the Supreme Court in respect of an application brought under Article 40.4.2 of the Constitution of Ireland. The High Court had found that the Applicant’s detention was in accordance with law. The Applicant appealed this to the Supreme Court. On the evening of 1 August 2011, Gardai stopped a bus which had crossed the … Read More

Principles:
  1. A detention order should contain clear information on its face as to the basis of its jurisdiction. In respect of s. 5(2)(a) of the Immigration Act 2003, in particular, it is necessary for a detention order to state on its face which provision or provisions of s. 5(1) of that Act apply.
  2. A warrant of detention is not required to make statements of law, and it is not necessary for a detention order to show on its face the time permitted for detention, where the period permitted for detention is a matter of general law and/or provided by statute.
Go Back

Om v Governor of Cloverhill Prison

emnadmin

Respondent/Defendant:Governor of Cloverhill Prison
Court/s:High Court
Citation/s:1st August 2011, 2011 IEHC 341, Unreported
Nature of Proceedings:Article 40.4.2 Enquiry
Judgment Date/s:01 Aug 2011
Judge:Hogan, G.
Category:Deportation, Detention
Keywords:Deportation, Deportation Order, Detainee, Detention, Entry Ban, Expulsion, Expulsion Order, Nationality, Non-EU National, Non-national, Refoulement, Refoulement (Non-), Removal, Removal Order, Third-Country National, Third-Country national found to be illegally present
Country of Origin:Contested
URL:https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/bcf48dda-1963-4d70-b922-1aab45121c45/2011_IEHC_341_1.pdf/pdf#view=fitH
Geographic Focus:Ireland

This case involved an application brought under Article 40.4.2 of the Constitution of Ireland. The Applicant, David Fracis Om, who had unsuccessfully sought asylum, claimed to be Liberian, but his precise origins were a matter of doubt throughout the asylum process. The Refugee Applications Commissioner had found that he showed a distinct lack of knowledge of Liberian history and geography, … Read More

Principles:
  1. The question of whether a suspicion that a person intends to evade deportation, so as to allow for that person’s detention, is justified under s. 5(1) (d) of the Immigration Act 1999 is an objective one.
  2. Detention of a person (against whom a deportation order has been made) under s. 5 of the Illegal Immigrations Act 1999 must be for the purposes of effecting a deportation order, and it must be evident that the deportation can actually be effected within the eight week statutory period.
  3. Matters relevant to whether there is any likelihood that deportation can be effected within the maximum detention period are:
    whether there is an investigation of an Applicant’s nationality;
      whether it would be necessary for the Minister to consider the issue of refoulement afresh; and
        practicalities re organising deportation.
          Go Back

          Izevbekhai and Ors v Ireland

          adminLeave a Comment

          Respondent/Defendant:Ireland
          Court/s:ECJ
          Citation/s:Application No. 43408/08
          Nature of Proceedings:Admissibility
          Judgment Date/s:17 May 2011
          Judge:Fifth Section
          Category:Deportation
          Keywords:Deportation, Deportation Order, Refoulement, Refoulement (Non-)
          Country of Origin:Nigeria
          URL:http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/sites/eng/pages/search.aspx?i=001-105081#{%22itemid%22:[%22001-105081%22]}
          Geographic Focus:Europe
          References:Izevbekhai and Ors v. Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform and Ors [2010] IESC 44; E.P.I. and Ors v. Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform [2008] IEHC 23; Izevbekhai and Ors v. Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform and Ors, 10 November 2006

          The Applicants were a mother and two daughters who arrived in Ireland in January 2005. Mrs. Izevbekhai applied for declarations of refugee status on her own behalf and on behalf of her daughters. The basis of her claim for refugee status was that she was in fear for her own life and the lives of her daughters if they were … Read More

          Principles:

          Ms Izevbekhai and her husband could protect their daughters from female genital mutilation if returned to Nigeria.

          Go Back

          TK v Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform

          adminLeave a Comment

          Respondent/Defendant:Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform
          Court/s:High Court
          Citation/s:[2011] IEHC 99
          Nature of Proceedings:Judicial Review
          Judgment Date/s:09 Feb 2011
          Judge:Hogan J.
          Category:Deportation
          Keywords:Deportation, Refoulement (Non-)
          Country of Origin:Togo
          URL:https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/1b61e7db-c617-48e4-8f78-e94d16e68b9f/2011_IEHC_99_1.pdf/pdf#view=fitH
          Geographic Focus:Ireland
          References:Meadows v. Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform [2010] IESC 3

          The Applicant was a Togolese national who claimed refugee status in Ireland on the grounds that his family had long-standing opposition to the authoritarian regime in Togo.  His claim was rejected and he applied for leave to remain in Ireland on humanitarian grounds. In considering such applications, the Minister is required by section 5 of the Refugee Act, 1996, to … Read More

          Principles:

          The Minister is obliged to give a coherent reason justifying the conclusion that the prohibition on refoulement in section 5 of the Refugee Act 1996 is satisfied, and this is so even where the claim has been rejected in the asylum process on credibility grounds

          Go Back

          Meadows v Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform

          emnadmin

          Respondent/Defendant:Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform
          Court/s:Supreme Court
          Citation/s:[2010] IESC 3
          Nature of Proceedings:Appeal
          Judgment Date/s:21 Jan 2010
          Judge:Murray C.J., Denham, Hardiman, Fennelly and Kearns JJ.
          Category:Deportation, Refugee Law
          Keywords:Deportation, Deportation Order, Refoulement, Refoulement (Non-), Refugee
          Country of Origin:Nigeria
          URL:https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/79f361a3-d107-456f-914f-02b3b49fe422/2010_IESC_3_3.pdf/pdf#view=fitH
          References:O'Keeffe v. An Bord Pleanala

          The Applicant, a Nigerian citizen, sought asylum in Ireland on the grounds that she would be subjected to female genital mutilation (FGM) in Nigeria. The Refugee Applications Commissioner recommended that she not be declared a refugee, and this recommendation was confirmed by the Refugee Appeals Tribunal on appeal. The Applicant the sought leave to remain on humanitarian grounds from the … Read More

          Principles:In assessing the reasonableness of administrative decisions in cases affecting fundamental rights, the courts are entitled to consider the proportionality of the decision.
          Go Back