Facts: The applicant was a Russian national, who claimed to be of Chechen ethnicity. He applied for asylum in the State on that account and gave a history which was untrue in that he failed to disclose he had applied for asylum in Slovakia. This was brought to his attention by the Refugee Applications Commissioner and he made representations as … Read More
JMO v Refugee Applications Commissioner and the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform
| Respondent/Defendant: | Refugee Applications Commissioner and the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform |
| Court/s: | High Court |
| Citation/s: | [2014] IEHC 467 |
| Nature of Proceedings: | Judicial Review |
| Judgment Date/s: | 22 Aug 2014 |
| Judge: | McDermott J. |
| Category: | Refugee Law |
| Keywords: | Asylum, Asylum Seeker (Secondary Movement of), Country of Origin Information, Dublin Regulation, Family Member, Persecution, Refugee, Transfer Order |
| Country of Origin: | Russia |
| URL: | https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/a6c83799-e4f3-4e11-a887-3fe619ed2941/2014_IEHC_467_1.pdf/pdf#view=fitH |
| Geographic Focus: | Ireland |
| Principles: | A rebuttable presumption exists that the treatment of asylum seekers in all EU Member States complies with the requirements of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, the Geneva Convention on the Status of Refugees and the European Convention on Human Rights. Not every infringement of relevant Directives will preclude the transfer of an applicant under the Dublin Regulation. In order to rebut the presumption, cogent evidence must be shown of a “real risk” of being subject to a breach of rights if transferred to a receiving country under the Dublin Regulation. |