FF v Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform

adminLeave a Comment

Respondent/Defendant:Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform
Court/s:Court of Appeal
Citation/s:[2017] IECA 273
Nature of Proceedings:Appeal
Judgment Date/s:25 Oct 2017
Judge:Finlay Geoghegan M.
Category:Refugee Law
Keywords:Asylum, Protection (Application for International), Refugee, Refugee Law, Stateless Person
Country of Origin:Cameroon
URL:https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/318af6e0-f050-45db-b8e0-08c467775cdc/2017_IECA_273_1.pdf/pdf#view=fitH
Geographic Focus:Other

Facts: The applicant was born in Cameroon in 1965. He worked as a journalist and with an NGO and claimed to have experienced persecution in Cameroon, including arrest, detention and torture. He fled to Nigeria in 1999 and was recognised as a refugee there in 2001. He claims to have been threatened by a Cameroonian diplomat in Nigeria, and in … Read More

Principles:

The Qualification Directive in using the term “a stateless person” in the definition of “refugee” in Article 2(c) is using this term to connote the second category of persons referred to in the definition of refugee in the Geneva Convention, namely persons “not having a nationality”. This meant a person who was de jure stateless but did not include a person who was de facto stateless.

Go Back

BDR v Refugee Appeals Tribunal

adminLeave a Comment

Respondent/Defendant:Refugee Appeals Tribunal
Court/s:High Court
Citation/s:[2016] IEHC 274
Nature of Proceedings:Judicial Review
Judgment Date/s:25 May 2016
Judge:Faherty M.
Category:Refugee Law
Keywords:Asylum, Protection (International), Refugee, Refugee Law, Stateless Person
Country of Origin:Bhutan
URL:https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/61b87a1a-bde6-4b76-93c2-9c03819acb17/2016_IEHC_274_1.pdf/pdf#view=fitH
Geographic Focus:Other

Facts: The applicant was born in Bhutan to parents of Nepalese ethnicity. He claimed he had been denied citizenship of Bhutan because of his ethnicity and that his family home had been attacked and his parents killed. He subsequently left Bhutan and went to live in India where he lived for a number of years, before ultimately arranging with a … Read More

Principles:

The decision in BDR establishes that a stateless asylum seeker with more than one country of former habitual residence is not required to prove a well founded fear of persecution in every country of former habitual residence in order to be recognised as a refugee. It is sufficient that the asylum seeker has a well founded fear in one country of former habitual residence and that the asylum seeker is unable or unwilling to return to any of the other countries of former habitual residence. 

Go Back

Spila 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:[2012] IEHC 336
Nature of Proceedings:Judicial Review
Judgment Date/s:31 Jul 2012
Judge:Cooke J
Category:Citizenship, Naturalisation
Keywords:Alien, Citizenship, Citizenship (Acquisition of), Country of Birth, Nationality, Nationality (Ethnic), Naturalisation, Stateless Person
Country of Origin:Latvia (Ethnic Russian)
URL:https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/031a0c42-4d25-441d-8bd1-460eb938823e/2012_IEHC_336_1.pdf/pdf#view=fitH
Geographic Focus:Ireland

Facts The applicants were ethnic Russians born in Latvia and residing in Ireland from 1999 onwards. They applied for naturalisation as Irish citizens under the Irish Nationality and Citizenship Act 1956 (as amended). They described themselves in their application as “Latvian (ethnic Russian)”. However, under Latvian law they only had an entitlement to an “Alien’s passport” from the Latvian authorities, … Read More

Principles:

Having regard to the Minister’s absolute discretion under Section  15 of the 1956 Act* the mixed question of fact and law as to whether the applicants, in their particular personal circumstances, were stateless, was first and foremost a matter of policy for the Minister, and for him to decide that in the first instance. 

It is always possible to make a new application for naturalisation incorporating all new and relevant information and expert opinion relied upon, including as to issues of statelessness.

(* Regard should now be had to the decision of the Supreme Court in Mallak v Minister for Justice [2012] IESC 59, 6 December 2012, on the nature of the Minister’s ‘absolute’ discretion under s. 15 of the 1956 Act.)

Go Back