T (Russian Federation) v International Protection Appeals Tribunal

EMNireland


T (Russian Federation) v International Protection Appeals Tribunal
Respondent/Defendant:International Protection Appeals Tribunal
Court/s:High Court
Citation/s:[2023] IEHC 271
Nature of Proceedings:Appeal
Judgment Date/s:25 May 2023
Judge:Simons G
Category:Asylum
Keywords:Country of Origin Information, Exclusion Clauses, Persecution, Refugee Law, Refugee Status
Country of Origin:Russia
URL:https://www.courts.ie/view/judgments/0bf80c1a-a406-4ddb-92e4-27f7e8e6cd53/209fff5c-8269-41cb-a5ea-68555cd35fe7/2023_IEHC_271.pdf/pdf

Facts: The applicant was an adult male from the Caucasus region and was Muslim. He applied for international protection in Ireland on the basis that he was being targeted by the Federal Security Service (“FSB”) of the Russian Federation and that the FSB had made false accusations of terrorism against him because of his failure to co-operate with them. In … Read More

Principles:In order to make a valid finding that a person is excluded from refugee status there must be an individualised assessment of the nature of the alleged conduct and the applicant’s responsibility for same. Decision makers must distinguish between various stages of a criminal procedure when assessing what weight should be given to documents such as search warrants.
Go Back

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

adminLeave a Comment

Respondent/Defendant:Refugee Appeals Tribunal, the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, the Attorney General and Ireland
Court/s:High Court
Citation/s:[2014] IEHC 374
Nature of Proceedings:Judicial Review
Judgment Date/s:22 Jul 2014
Judge:MacEochaidh J.
Category:Refugee Law
Keywords:Asylum, Asylum application (Examination of an), Persecution, Refugee, Refugee (Convention), Refugee Law, Refugee Status
Country of Origin:Georgia
URL:https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/1cf976e5-c605-4e78-853b-d2da1d231f44/2014_IEHC_374_1.pdf/pdf#view=fitH
Geographic Focus:Ireland

Facts: The applicant was a Georgian national. He left Georgia in August, 2008 and arrived in Ireland some days later and claimed asylum. He said that he fled Georgia because of the conflict between Russia, South Ossetia, Abkazhia and Georgia and of his fears of imprisonment as a result of his refusal to be conscripted into the Georgian army, to … Read More

Principles:

An asylum applicant who is unable to submit any objective information to support his or her claim to fear persecution if returned to his or her country of origin is likely to be unable to make out a well-founded fear of persecution and, hence, an entitlement to a declaration of refugee status.

Go Back

GNL 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 292
Nature of Proceedings:Judicial Review
Judgment Date/s:30 May 2014
Judge:MacEochaidh J.
Category:Refugee Law
Keywords:Asylum, Asylum application (Examination of an), Persecution, Refugee, Refugee (Convention), Refugee Law, Refugee Status
Country of Origin:Democratic Republic of Congo
URL:https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/b751a42c-df8f-48b8-8a41-ffb9516b5641/2014_IEHC_292_1.pdf/pdf#view=fitH
Geographic Focus:Ireland

Facts: The applicant claimed to be a national of the Democratic Republic of Congo (“DRC”). She allegedly arrived in the State in 2007, having travelled from the DRC via Brazzaville and an airport in France. She claimed asylum. Her husband was living in Ireland at the time and had been granted leave to remain in the State. The Refugee Applications … Read More

Principles:

Rejection of an asylum applicant’s application partly on the erroneous basis that it was the same as an unsuccessful application made by another party, such as a spouse, will likely result in the negative decision being quashed, unless it is clear to the reviewing court precisely what weight was given by the decision-maker to it erroneous assessment of the claim.

Where an applicant has not sworn a grounding affidavit in accordance with the Rules of the Superior Courts, this will not necessarily result in the dismissal of the applicant’s proceedings. Where the error is attributable to the applicant’s legal representatives, the applicant will not be personally at fault and good and sufficient reason will exist to extend time in order to allow an affidavit to be sworn which complies with the Rules.

Go Back

MOI v Refugee Appeals Tribunal, the Attorney General and the Human Rights Commission

adminLeave a Comment

Respondent/Defendant:Refugee Appeals Tribunal, the Attorney General and the Human Rights Commission
Court/s:High Court
Citation/s:[2014] IEHC 291
Nature of Proceedings:Judicial Review
Judgment Date/s:30 May 2014
Judge:MacEochaidh J.
Category:Refugee Law
Keywords:Asylum, Asylum application (Examination of an), Persecution, Refugee, Refugee (Convention), Refugee Law, Refugee Status
Country of Origin:Nigeria
URL:https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/e8553225-9645-487d-b337-84614338ac84/2014_IEHC_291_1.pdf/pdf#view=fitH
Geographic Focus:Ireland

Facts: The applicant was a national of Nigeria who sought asylum and whose application was refused by the Refugee Appeals Tribunal. He sought to quash its decision. He claimed to fear being put to death because of his father’s association with a secret cult, whose aim was to make its members wealthy by killing their children. He claimed that his … Read More

Principles:

The absence of a sworn statement in the grounding affidavit to judicial review proceedings as to the facts relied upon in the statement of grounds will not necessarily lead to the  proceedings being dismissed for failure to comply with the Rules of the Superior Courts, whether on the grounds of delay or otherwise. The court will consider the merits of the application before deciding whether or not the applicant should be entitled to swear an affidavit which remedies the error.

Section 2 of the ECHR Act 2003 applies to a “court”, which term does not include the Refugee Appeals Tribunal. The Tribunal is, however, bound by s. 3 of the ECHR Act 2003 and is obliged to perform its functions in a manner compatible with the State's obligations under the ECHR’s provisions. To qualify as a refugee, an asylum applicant must come within a specific definition within the terms of the Refugee Act 1996. Claims for refugee status do not address constitutional or ECHR rights, and unsuccessful applicants are left in exactly the same position with regard to them as they had been before their application was determined. There is no interference with any constitutional or ECHR rights as a result of a refusal to recommend refugee status

Nonetheless, rights available to asylum applicants under the Constitution and the ECHR are applicable to the manner in which protection decision-makers like the Refugee Appeals Tribunal carry out their functions, but do not arise in terms of making an assessment on the applicant’s entitlement to refugee status.

No provision of Community law requires protection decision-makers to apply the provisions of the ECHR when taking protection decisions, save that the right to an adequate remedy contained in the Charter of Fundamental Rights applies to the procedures whereby protection decisions are taken.

Go Back

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

adminLeave a Comment

Respondent/Defendant:Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform and the Refugee Appeals Tribunal
Court/s:High Court
Citation/s:[2014] IEHC 290
Nature of Proceedings:Judicial Review
Judgment Date/s:30 May 2014
Judge:MacEochaidh J.
Category:Refugee Law
Keywords:Asylum, Asylum application (Examination of an), Persecution, Persecution (Actors of), Refugee, Refugee (Convention), Refugee Law, Refugee Status
Country of Origin:Nigeria
URL:https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/5c809202-173f-4d7c-be27-8e412e255df9/2014_IEHC_290_1.pdf/pdf#view=fitH
Geographic Focus:Ireland

Facts: The applicant, a national of Nigeria, claimed to be a Christian and to have had a husband whom she converted to Christianity from Islam in 1992. She said that she fell foul of her husband’s family as a result, and they took her child in 1993. She said that she moved around Nigeria on a number of occasions owing … Read More

Principles:

Under Article 8 of the Qualification Directive and reg. 7 of the EC (Eligibility for Protection) Regulations 2006, a protection decision-maker, when examining the possibility of internal relocation, must enquire as to whether the applicant's persecutors might harm him or her in an identified part of the country of origin. If it is found that the identified part of the country is free from the applicant's well-founded fear of persecution, the decision-maker must also be satisfied that the applicant could reasonably be expected to stay there, and in reaching that conclusion, regard has to be had to the general circumstances prevailing there and to the personal circumstances of the applicant.

Go Back

SE (A Minor) 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 240
Nature of Proceedings:Judicial Review
Judgment Date/s:02 May 2014
Judge:McDermott J.
Category:Refugee Law
Keywords:Asylum, Asylum application (Examination of an), Child, Country of Origin Information, Minor, Persecution, Refugee, Refugee (Convention), Refugee Law, Refugee Status
Country of Origin:Nigeria
URL:https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/a127cf1c-db69-477c-b5ca-da2600af9f62/2014_IEHC_240_1.pdf/pdf#view=fitH
Geographic Focus:Ireland

Facts: The applicant was a minor and a national of Nigeria. His mother claimed asylum on his behalf. She said that she was a member of the Osu caste and that her husband was a member of the Igbo tribe. She claimed that the Osu were viewed as outcasts and that her husband’s family might try to kill the applicant … Read More

Principles:

Findings made about the treatment of a group to which an asylum applicant claims to belong in his or her country of origin, and which is based on reliable country of origin information, will not be unreasonable.

A court will not permit an applicant to obtain leave or relief on grounds of challenge which are too general in nature to be stateable and which have not been particularised in the statement of grounds or in written submissions, or connected meaningfully to the facts of the case.

Go Back

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

adminLeave a Comment

Respondent/Defendant:Refugee Appeals Tribunal, the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Ireland and the Attorney General
Court/s:High Court
Citation/s:[2014] IEHC 239
Nature of Proceedings:Judicial Review
Judgment Date/s:02 May 2014
Judge:McDermott J.
Category:Refugee Law
Keywords:Asylum, Asylum application (Examination of an), Persecution, Refugee, Refugee (Convention), Refugee Law, Refugee Status
URL:https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/cadc911c-0597-4c30-9cf3-4363df664eed/2014_IEHC_239_1.pdf/pdf#view=fitH
Geographic Focus:Ireland

Facts: The applicant was a Nigerian national and a Muslim. His father, who died when he was a baby, had allegedly been a chief in the Ogboni society. The applicant’s mother besought him to resist being initiated into it, contending that it was incompatible with his religion. The applicant said that in 2005, his mother was approached by a senior … Read More

Principles:

A protection decision-maker must ensure that any findings on credibility are unambiguous, so as to leave the applicant, and any reviewing court, in no doubt as to whether the decision-maker believed his claim or not. This is particularly so if it wishes to make a finding that internal relocation is available to the applicant.

Go Back

KA (a minor) 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 223
Nature of Proceedings:Judicial Review
Judgment Date/s:11 Apr 2014
Judge:McDermott J.
Category:Refugee Law
Keywords:Asylum, Asylum application (Examination of an), Child, Minor, Refugee, Refugee Law, Refugee Status
Country of Origin:Ghana / Cameroon
URL:https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/9f7e6665-b457-49e0-af8c-218bd002a1b4/2014_IEHC_223_1.pdf/pdf#view=fitH
Geographic Focus:Ireland

Facts: By notice of motion dated 7th October, 2013, the applicant initiated an application for leave to apply by way of judicial review for an order of certiorari quashing the decision of the Refugee Appeals Tribunal to refuse her application for refugee status. The respondents subsequently issued a notice of motion pursuant to O.19, r.28 RSC seeking an order dismissing … Read More

Principles:

A specific statutory jurisdiction exists under s. 5 of the Illegal Immigrants (Trafficking) Act 2000 to deal with the question of whether or not substantial grounds have been advanced by an applicant who wishes to challenge a negative decision. A court which has been asked to dismiss proceedings pursuant to its inherent jurisdiction must take that into account. Such jurisdiction must be sparingly exercised and a court will likely refrain from exercising in the absence of bad faith, deliberate prolongation of proceedings to delay the implementation of patently valid orders, or where the invocation of judicial review jurisdiction was inappropriate.

Go Back

IG 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 207
Nature of Proceedings:Judicial Review
Judgment Date/s:11 Apr 2014
Judge:MacEochaidh J.
Category:Refugee Law
Keywords:Asylum, Asylum application (Examination of an), Persecution, Refugee, Refugee (Convention), Refugee Law, Refugee Status
Country of Origin:Egypt
URL:https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/d8c88f17-3d5b-4889-aed8-8119d099028e/2014_IEHC_207_1.pdf/pdf#view=fitH
Geographic Focus:Ireland

Facts: The applicant was an Egyptian national who claimed to have arrived in Ireland by boat, disembarking at Waterford Port in February, 2006, and making his way by bus to Dublin thereafter. He claimed that he did not apply for asylum immediately upon arrival in Ireland, as he was told by certain people he knew that if he made an … Read More

Principles:

An applicant who has been notified of the making of a s. 13(1) report by the Refugee Applications Commissioner has a duty, as an active participant in the asylum process, to take issue with any findings in it with which he disagrees on appeal to the Refugee Appeals Tribunal. A genuine mistake in failing to do so may provide an unsuccessful applicant with an entitlement to apply for re-entry to the asylum process pursuant to s. 17(7) of the Refugee Act 1996.

It will not be a satisfactory explanation for delay in claiming asylum to argue that it was motivated by fear of deportation, relying on an unsubstantiated reference to an allegedly low refugee recognition rate.

Go Back

TA and OJO (a minor) v Refugee Appeals Tribunal, the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Ireland and the Attorney General

adminLeave a Comment

Respondent/Defendant:Refugee Appeals Tribunal, the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Ireland and the Attorney General
Court/s:High Court
Citation/s:[2014] IEHC 204
Nature of Proceedings:Judicial Review
Judgment Date/s:03 Apr 2014
Judge:MacEochaidh J.
Category:Refugee Law
Keywords:Asylum, Persecution, Refugee, Refugee (Convention), Refugee Law, Refugee Status
Country of Origin:Nigeria
URL:http://www.courts.ie/Judgments.nsf/0/BCF5B17194B1A3E280257CC5003680CF
Geographic Focus:Ireland

Facts:The first and second named applicants were, respectively, a Nigerian mother and her son. She arrived in the State in 2006 and her son was born here that same year. She claimed to have fled Nigeria in fear of persecution from her mother-in-law and her husband, whom she claimed had been violent to her and had threatened to take custody … Read More

Principles:

A protection decision-maker is entitled to make an adverse credibility finding on an asylum application where contradictions and inconsistencies surround a material piece of evidence.

A protection decision-maker like the Tribunal is obliged to give a reasonable opportunity to an asylum applicant to know the matters likely to affect its decision on his or her claim, it is not required to enter into a debate with him or her.

Unless there are specific factors capable of supporting a contention that delay in making a determination on  protection application has rendered the eventual decision unlawful or invalid, such delay cannot, of itself, amount to a substantial ground for contending that the decision is invalid.

Go Back

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

adminLeave a Comment

Respondent/Defendant:Refugee Applications Commissioner, Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform and the Refugee Appeals Tribunal, Ireland and the Attorney General
Court/s:High Court
Citation/s:[2014] IEHC 171
Nature of Proceedings:Judicial Review
Judgment Date/s:01 Apr 2014
Judge:MacEochaidh J.
Category:Refugee Law
Keywords:Asylum, Asylum application (Examination of an), Child, Minor, Persecution, Refugee, Refugee (Convention), Refugee Law, Refugee Status
Country of Origin:Nigeria
URL:https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/c88cb74a-15d3-4f0c-aa62-1e53d532a963/2014_IEHC_171_1.pdf/pdf#view=fitH
Geographic Focus:Ireland

Facts: The applicant was born in Ireland in 2008 to a Nigerian mother, who claimed asylum on her behalf, asserting she feared persecution in Nigeria arising from her conversion from Islam to Christianity and from the baptism of her daughter. She claimed to fear persecution at the hands of her family and at the hands of the father of her … Read More

Principles:

It is open to a decision-maker to make an adverse credibility finding on a claim by an asylum applicant who fears persecution on the ground of membership of a religious group, if the applicant’s knowledge of the religion in question is not what might reasonably be expected from someone in his or her position.

If an asylum applicant has sought refuge with a person en route to the State, it will be reasonable for a protection decision-maker to expect the applicant to recall that person’s name, and if he or she cannot, it will be open to the decision-maker to make an adverse credibility finding on the asylum application in that regard.

A decision-maker will make a valid finding on Internal relocation if he or she identifies a place of relocation and concludes that the applicant reasonably stay there, having regard to the general circumstances prevailing there and the personal circumstances of the asylum applicant.

Go Back

CW 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 157
Nature of Proceedings:Judicial Review
Judgment Date/s:28 Mar 2014
Judge:MacEochaidh J.
Category:Refugee Law
Keywords:Asylum, Asylum application (Examination of an), Country of Origin Information, Persecution, Refugee, Refugee (Convention), Refugee Law, Refugee Status
Country of Origin:Liberia
URL:https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/7003d815-9059-4f98-907a-f22cf1103d16/2014_IEHC_157_1.pdf/pdf#view=fitH
Geographic Focus:Ireland

Facts: The applicant was a Liberian national who claimed to have arrived in Ireland in 2008 and applied for asylum. He claimed to be an unaccompanied minor but was not accepted as such as he had not provided a genuine passport or any verifiable documentation to prove his identity and appeared to be older in appearance and to have the … Read More

Principles:

When assessing a claim by an applicant for international protection, a protection decision-maker like the Refugee Appeals Tribunal is not obliged expressly to refer in its decision to information, such as medical evidence, which supports that applicant’s subjective fear, in circumstances where the decision-maker does not question the credibility of the subjective element of the applicant’s claim.

Findings made by a protection decision-maker will not be irrational or unreasonable if they are cogent, supported by reference to country of origin information, and adequately reasoned. These include findings in relation to forward-looking fear which are based on positive changes in the applicant’s country of origin and which suggest that his or her fear of persecution or serious harm are no longer objectively well-founded.

Go Back

RT (DRC) 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 194
Nature of Proceedings:Judicial Review
Judgment Date/s:28 Mar 2014
Judge:McDermott J.
Category:Refugee Law
Keywords:Asylum, Asylum application (Examination of an), Persecution, Refugee, Refugee (Convention), Refugee Law, Refugee Status
Country of Origin:Democratic Republic of Congo (“DRC”)
URL:https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/24febbc8-530d-43dd-a33f-8335fe9a390d/2014_IEHC_194_1.pdf/pdf#view=fitH
Geographic Focus:Ireland

Facts: The applicant claimed to be a national of the Democratic Republic of Congo (“DRC”). She arrived in Ireland and claimed asylum. Her fear of persecution rested on three matters, namely:- her race or ethnicity, based on the fact that she was a Tutsi; her membership of a social group comprising Tutsi women; and her fear if refouled as a … Read More

Principles:

In deciding whether or not the applicant, a Tutsi, was a refugee from the DRC and had a forward-looking fear of persecution there, the Tribunal was obliged to take into account the fact that she had suffered past persecution in that country, and the existence of a continuing undercurrent of prejudice and discrimination against Tutsis there, notwithstanding that her reasons for leaving the country had been held to lack credibility.

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

Hussein v The Minister for Justice and Law Reform

adminLeave a Comment

Respondent/Defendant:Minister for Justice and Equality
Court/s:High Court
Citation/s:[2014] IEHC 130
Nature of Proceedings:Appeal
Judgment Date/s:18 Mar 2014
Judge:MacEochaidh J.
Category:Refugee Law
Keywords:Asylum, Burden of Proof, Refugee, Refugee (Convention), Refugee Law, Refugee Status, Refugee Status (Withdrawal of)
Country of Origin:Sudan
URL:https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/e69eaf33-1a83-436b-b525-a37986fd1d19/2014_IEHC_130_1.pdf/pdf#view=fitH
Geographic Focus:Ireland

Facts: The appellant was a Sudanese national who had been granted a declaration of refugee status in Ireland by the Minister for Justice on foot of a positive recommendation of the Refugee Applications Commissioner. He claimed that he had fled Sudan for Ireland, arriving in it in November, 2006, after his village was attacked by Sudanese government forces and the … Read More

Principles:

Where a person is appealing a decision of the Minister for Justice to revoke his or her declaration of refugee status, such an appeal can only be successful if the High Court is persuaded that the Minister incorrectly decided to revoke the declaration. The burden is on the applicant to demonstrate that the Minister’s decision was incorrect.

The High Court is entitled to consider whether the Minister’s decision to revoke was correct, having regard not only to the material before the Minister when making it, but also to the evidence adduced by the appellant orally and on affidavit in the appeal.

The High Court must seek to identify false and misleading information and, should such be found, to enquire as to the effect of that on the appellant’s application for refugee status. In order for it to dismiss the appeal, it must be satisfied that the false or misleading information would have produced a negative decision on the application for refugee status.

Go Back

EOI 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 107
Nature of Proceedings:Judicial Review
Judgment Date/s:07 Mar 2014
Judge:McDermott J.
Category:Refugee Law
Keywords:Asylum, Asylum application (Examination of an), Burden of Proof, Country of Origin Information, Persecution, Refugee, Refugee Law, Refugee Status
Country of Origin:Nigeria
URL:https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/5d1a71eb-5f01-4c4e-83f8-536892e2d2e0/2014_IEHC_107_1.pdf/pdf#view=fitH
Geographic Focus:Ireland

Facts The applicant, a Nigerian national, arrived in Ireland in 2007 and claimed asylum.  His application was based on membership of a particular social group, arising out of his membership of the so-called Niger Delta Volunteer Force (“NDVF”). He claimed to have been a criminal in Nigeria and to have specialised in kidnapping, which brought him to the attention of … Read More

Principles:

An applicant who claims to fear persecution may have a subjective fear. However, in order to be a refugee, that fear must be objectively justified. If an applicant does not adduce evidence to support the existence of objective fear, or if a protection decision-maker is unable to find such evidence, an applicant will likely not be held to be a refugee, particularly if such evidence may be reasonably be expected to exist.

 

Where an asylum applicant claims to have carried out so-called “political” crimes, in assessing whether he is fleeing prosecution or persecution, it is necessary to consider whether or not the criminal activity carried out by the applicant bears any relationship to the political aim sought to be achieved by the activity. In assessing this, regard may usefully be had to such matters as the UNHCR Handbook and the principles informing the legal definition of the “political exception” as defined by domestic law in the area of extradition.

Go Back

ROY 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 162
Nature of Proceedings:Judicial Review
Judgment Date/s:06 Mar 2014
Judge:Barr J.
Category:Refugee Law
Keywords:Persecution, Refugee, Refugee (Convention), Refugee Law, Refugee Status
Country of Origin:Nigeria
URL:https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/6592414d-7f89-43a2-b9ac-bc8510a93a77/2014_IEHC_162_1.pdf/pdf#view=fitH
Geographic Focus:Ireland

Facts: The applicant, a Nigerian national, was a Muslim, whose partner was a pagan, but later converted to Islam at her request. When his parents discovered this, they reacted angrily and threatened her. Her partner’s father, a wealthy and influential man, and leader in the Ogboni Society, subsequently became very ill. An oracle, in the form of a traditional priest, … Read More

Principles:

A protection decision-maker which wishes to make a material adverse credibility finding on an asylum applicant’s claim by reference to country of origin information is obliged by fair procedures and s. 16(8) of the Refugee Act 1996 to put that information to the applicant for comment.

Go Back

TJ 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 161
Nature of Proceedings:Judicial Review
Judgment Date/s:27 Feb 2014
Judge:Barr J.
Category:Refugee Law
Keywords:Asylum, Asylum application (Examination of an), Country of Origin Information, Persecution, Refugee, Refugee (Convention), Refugee Status
Country of Origin:Afghanistan
URL:https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/241662e8-acc4-41e4-9589-4b4d05274aae/2014_IEHC_161_1.pdf/pdf#view=fitH
Geographic Focus:Ireland

Facts: The applicant was an Afghan national. His application for asylum was based on his claim to have fallen foul of both the government and the Taliban in Afghanistan. He asserted that he came from a family which was opposed to the authorities and to have engaged in acts of terrorism. He said that the Taliban chose him to become … Read More

Principles:

Allocation of little or no weight by a protection decision-maker to material evidence due to a mistake of fact will likely result in its decision being quashed.

A protection decision-maker must also ensure that, when making findings on credibility, such findings be unambiguous, so as to leave the applicant, and any reviewing court, in no doubt as to whether the decision-maker believed his claim or not.

Go Back

NzN v Minister for Justice and Equality

adminLeave a Comment

Respondent/Defendant:Minister for Justice and Equality
Court/s:High Court
Citation/s:[2014] IEHC 31
Nature of Proceedings:Appeal
Judgment Date/s:27 Jan 2014
Judge:Clark J.
Category:Refugee Law
Keywords:Country of Nationality, Country of Origin, Nationality, Refugee, Refugee Status
Country of Origin:Nigeria
URL:https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/a5972f99-df90-47f5-966e-cbd41f55a144/2014_IEHC_31_1.pdf/pdf#view=fitH
Geographic Focus:Ireland

Facts: The appellant (Nz.N) sought to overturn a decision by the Minister for Justice to revoke her declaration of refugee status by way of statutory appeal to the High Court pursuant to the provisions of the Refugee Act 1996. She sought asylum in December, 2005 and had been declared a refugee in February, 2006. Her infant son, whom she claimed … Read More

Principles:

Under s. 21(1)(h) of the Refugee Act 1996 and reg. 11(2)(b) of the EC (Eligibility for Protection) Regulations 2006, the powers of the court on an appeal against a revocation of refugee status entail determining whether the decision to revoke the declaration was correctly made and should be confirmed, or whether it was wrong and should be withdrawn. The court can consider all the evidence which was before the Minister and hear oral evidence from the appellant and any witnesses called by either party in determining the appeal. The court can come to its own view as to whether the decision to revoke was appropriate or should be withdrawn. The court does this on the evidence which was before the Minister and any additional evidence presented on the appeal.

Go Back

MAB v Refugee Applications Commissioner, Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform and the Refugee Appeals Tribunal

adminLeave a Comment

Respondent/Defendant:Refugee Applications Commissioner, Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform and the Refugee Appeals Tribunal
Court/s:High Court
Nature of Proceedings:Judicial Review
Judgment Date/s:13 Jan 2014
Judge:O'Malley J.
Category:Refugee Law
Keywords:Asylum, Asylum application (Examination of an), Persecution, Refugee, Refugee (Convention), Refugee Law, Refugee Status
Country of Origin:Sudan
URL:https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/66de7be5-bc0a-4506-a0c0-f1a2ae362b85/2014_IEHC_64_1.pdf/pdf#view=fitH
Geographic Focus:Ireland

Facts: The appellant claimed to be a Sudanese national, a member of the Zaghawa tribe from Darfur. He claimed that he had fled Sudan for the State after his village was attacked by Sudanese government forces and the Janjaweed. He sought asylum in Malta in June, 2005 and was granted temporary humanitarian protection. The latest extension of that status was … Read More

Principles:

Where an applicant relies upon a matter fundamental to a claim of forward-looking fear of persecution in his country of origin, a first-instance protection decision-maker like the Refugee Applications Commissioner should make a reasoned finding on whether or not that matter is accepted. Failure to do so, leaving the applicant to address it on appeal to the Refugee Appeals Tribunal, will result in that matter being determined for the first time at the appeal, and constitute unfairness to the applicant, making it likely that a court will set aside the first-instance decision.

An applicant for refugee status does not have to show that he or she will likely be targeted individually if returned to his or her country of origin in order to make out a well-founded fear of persecution.

Go Back