Facts: The applicant claimed to be an Afghan national. He applied for asylum and said that his father and brother had been influential figures in the local Taleban organisation and were held responsible for many crimes by the inhabitants of their area. When the Taleban was overthrown, his father and brother were taken away by commanders loyal to the new … Read More
AMK (a minor) v Refugee Appeals Tribunal & anor
| Respondent/Defendant: | Refugee Appeals Tribunal and Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform |
| Court/s: | High Court |
| Citation/s: | [2014] IEHC 380 |
| Nature of Proceedings: | Judicial Review |
| Judgment Date/s: | 25 Jul 2014 |
| Judge: | Barr J. |
| Category: | Refugee Law |
| Keywords: | Asylum, Minor, Persecution, Refugee |
| Country of Origin: | Afghanistan |
| URL: | https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/6d44c176-37c0-442d-9bf1-cb51b26e91ad/2014_IEHC_380_1.pdf/pdf#view=fitH |
| Geographic Focus: | Ireland |
| Principles: | If an applicant for asylum claims not to have claimed asylum in a country through which he passed en route to Ireland because it did not apply the Refugee Convention, a protection decision-maker will need to examine country of origin information to establish if it supports that claim. If it does, an applicant cannot be faulted for not claiming asylum in such a country. A protection decision-maker which makes credibility findings and does not specify which of them it considers material to its decision runs the risk of its decision being quashed if an individual finding is held to be unsound by a court, as the court may find itself unable to establish the weight attached to such a finding by the decision-maker. |