Mohammadi v Austria

adminLeave a Comment

Respondent/Defendant:Austria
Citation/s:Application No. 71932/12
Nature of Proceedings:Appeal
Judgment Date/s:03 Jul 2014
Judge:European Court of Human Rights (First Section)
Category:Refugee Law
Keywords:Asylum, Dublin Regulation, Refoulement, Refugee
URL:http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/sites/eng/pages/search.aspx?i=001-145233#{%22fulltext%22:[%22Mohammadi%20v%20Austria%22],%22itemid%22:[%22001-145233%22]}
Geographic Focus:Europe

Facts:The applicant was an Afghan national. He applied for asylum in Austria. His application was transferred to Hungary under the Dublin II Regulation. His removal was suspended on the basis of an interim measure granted by the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR). The applicant contended that, if transferred to Hungary, he would be at risk of imprisonment in atrocious … Read More

Principles:

An EU Member State which is, therefore, a  Contracting State to the ECHR, is precluded under the ECHR from transferring a person to another State under the Dublin II Regulation where substantial grounds have been shown for believing that he would face a real risk of being subjected to treatment contrary to article 3 ECHR in the receiving country. In deciding whether a real risk exists, regard must be had to the laws of the receiving State, reception conditions there, whether it is possible for the returnee to have his or her application for asylum examined there, and whether or not the UNHCR has issued a position paper requesting the cessation of returns to that country.

Go Back

BH v Refugee Appeals Tribunal and the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform

adminLeave a Comment

Respondent/Defendant:Refugee Appeals Tribunal and the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform
Court/s:High Court
Citation/s:[2014] IEHC 163
Nature of Proceedings:Judicial Review
Judgment Date/s:28 Mar 2014
Judge:Barr J.
Category:Refugee Law
Keywords:Asylum, Persecution, Refoulement, Refugee
Country of Origin:Ethiopia
URL:https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/ca178c5b-7b1a-46da-847f-b9456a491316/2014_IEHC_163_1.pdf/pdf#view=fitH
Geographic Focus:Ireland

Facts: The applicant was a national of Ethiopia who claimed to have been forced to join the army there. He claimed asylum in Ireland, contending that he was at risk of persecution on account of having divulged information to an opposition party about a secret cession of certain lands by Ethiopia to Sudan. This culminated in a meeting to determine … Read More

Principles:

Where an applicant’s credibility has been impugned, save as to an aspect where country of origin information shows a risk of persecution may exist, a protection decision-maker must assess whether or not the fear pertaining to that aspect is well-founded.

Go Back

PBN (DR Congo) v Minister for Justice and Equality

adminLeave a Comment

Respondent/Defendant:Minister for Justice and Equality
Court/s:Supreme Court
Citation/s:[2014] IESC 9
Nature of Proceedings:Appeal
Judgment Date/s:21 Feb 2014
Judge:Fennelly, McKechnie and Laffoy JJ.
Category:Deportation
Keywords:Deportation, Deportation Order, Protection (Subsidiary), Refoulement
Country of Origin:Democratic Republic of Congo
URL:http://www.courts.ie/Judgments.nsf/0/F96AA1C4318CE08E80257C8A004F7302

Facts: The applicant, a national of the Democratic Republic of Congo (“DRC”), was the subject of a deportation order and she sought unsuccessfully to re-enter the asylum process by making an application pursuant to Section 17(7) of the Refugee Act 1996. Her application was refused and she issued judicial review proceedings seeking leave to challenge the refusal, contending that the … Read More

Principles:

Where an applicant makes out an arguable case that an injunction should be granted to enjoin deportation, then the balance of convenience may favour granting an injunction pending the hearing of a leave application seeking to challenge the validity of a deportation order where a credible basis has been shown on the evidence that there is a real risk of significant harm to the applicant if he or she were deported pending that hearing.

Where evidential conflicts are raised on the documents exhibited in the course of an injunction application, the Supreme Court should not attempt to resolve them on an interlocutory application, that being a matter for the High Court at the hearing of the application for leave.

Go Back

BM v Minister for Justice and Equality, Ireland and the Attorney General

adminLeave a Comment

Respondent/Defendant:Minister for Justice and Equality, Ireland and the Attorney General
Court/s:High Court
Citation/s:[2014] IEHC 25
Nature of Proceedings:Judicial Review
Judgment Date/s:21 Jan 2014
Judge:MacEochaidh J.
Category:Refugee Law
Keywords:Protection (Person Eligible for Subsidiary), Protection (Subsidiary), Refoulement, Refugee
Country of Origin:Cameroon
URL:https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/f8acc827-ed7e-459a-a23b-ca399c21a431/2014_IEHC_25_1.pdf/pdf#view=fitH
Geographic Focus:Ireland

Facts: The applicant, a national of Cameroon, sought ex parte leave to seek judicial review of decisions of the Minister for Justice refusing to revoke a refusal of subsidiary protection a further refusal to permit the applicant to make a further application for subsidiary protection. The applicant had applied for revocation of the refusal of his subsidiary protection application 21 … Read More

Principles:

The principle of equivalence does not mean that equal remedies have to be available for administrative decisions which have their origins in European law.

The Minister for Justice is only obliged to consider material furnished in support of an application for revocation of a refusal of subsidiary protection if he decides to engage with the merits of such an application.

Refusal of subsidiary protection will not breach prohibition on refoulement as that matter is considered subsequently by the Minister

Go Back

AJ v Minister for Justice and Equality

adminLeave a Comment

Respondent/Defendant:Minister for Justice and Equality
Court/s:High Court
Citation/s:[2013] IEHC 296
Nature of Proceedings:Judicial Review
Judgment Date/s:18 Jun 2013
Judge:Clark J.
Category:Residence
Keywords:Member State (Remain in the), Protection (Humanitarian), Refoulement, Residence
Country of Origin:Afghanistan
URL:https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/f8ce6b8e-0505-4809-88ed-3d981bef3226/2013_IEHC_296_1.pdf/pdf#view=fitH
Geographic Focus:Ireland

Facts The first applicant, an Afghan national, sought to quash a positive decision granting him leave to remain in circumstances where he had not challenged a decision by the Minister for Justice to refuse visa applications made in respect of his family, who were living in Iran. The Minister had a general policy not to permit any person, whether related … Read More

Principles:

A person the subject of a grant of leave to remain will not necessarily be entitled to reasons why that grant was made, at least in circumstances where it is open to the High Court to infer from the evidence what those reasons were.

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

          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