Hussein v Labour Court & Anor

Respondent/Defendant:Labour Court & Anor
Court/s:High Court
Citation/s:Unreported
Nature of Proceedings:Judicial Review
Judgment Date/s:31 Aug 2012
Judge:Hogan J
Category:Employment
Keywords:Employee, Employer, Employment, Employment (Illegal), Employment of ILLEGALLY resident third-country national (Illegal), Exploitation, Foreigner, Immigration (Illegal), Migrant (Illegally resident / staying), Migrant Worker, Migration (Exploitative), Third-Country National, Third-Country national found to be illegally present
Country of Origin:Pakistan
URL:http://www.courts.ie/judgments.nsf/6681dee4565ecf2c80256e7e0052005b/3f2a0cfdd0d10ccd80257a6b004e2e1b
Geographic Focus:Ireland

Facts The applicant, Mr Hussein, and the notice party, Mr Younis are Pakistani nationals and cousins. In 2002, Mr Hussein, who operates a restaurant in Ireland, recruited his cousin to work as a Tandoori chef. Mr Younis maintained that he was required to work seven days a week with no holidays, that he was paid what amounted to pocket money … Read More

Principles:

Neither the Rights Commissioner nor the Labour Court can lawfully entertain an application for relief in respect of an employment contract that is substantively illegal for want of a work permit. Undocumented migrant workers do not benefit from employment legislation, even where they are not responsible for their unlawful status.

Go Back

Debisi v Minister for Justice and Law Reform

adminLeave a Comment

Respondent/Defendant:Minister for Justice and Law Reform
Court/s:High Court
Citation/s:2nd February, Unreported
Nature of Proceedings:Judicial Review
Judgment Date/s:02 Feb 2012
Judge:Cooke J
Category:Refugee Law
Keywords:Asylum application (Examination of an), Deportation, Deportation Order, Protection (Application for International), Protection Status (Subsidiary), Refugee, Removal, Removal Order
Country of Origin:Nigeria
URL:https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/a7137d48-a7be-4ce0-ad03-81fe704b3670/2012_IEHC_44_1.pdf/pdf#view=fitH
Geographic Focus:Ireland

The applicant had been refused asylum by the Refugee Applications Commissioner, and withdrew his appeal to the Refugee appeals Tribunal on the basis that his fear of serious harm in Nigeria was not one with a Convention nexus. His subsequent application for subsidiary protection, which was based on the same facts as his asylum claim, purported to reject the Commissioner’s … Read More

Principles:

There is no obligation on the Minister to reconsider a subsidiary protection applicant’s credibility in the absence of new evidence, information or other basis capable of demonstrating that the original findings were vitiated by material error on the part of the decision maker.

It may be that the fair procedures require the Minister for Justice to interview an applicant for subsidiary protection who seeks to rely upon a risk of harm from a source not previously considered in the asylum process. The deportation process is interrupted by the requirement to determine the subsidiary protection application. It is in the sense of resuming or continuing the procedure initiated with the notification of the deportation proposal that the words ‘proceed to consider’ are used in Regulation 4(5) of the European Community (Eligibility for Protection) Regulations 2006.

The work done by officials in the Department of Justice in preparing an examination of file re deportation is preparatory work only, and may be undertaken before a subsidiary protection application is determined. The Minister remains entirely free to make his own judgment on the case.

Go Back

AO v Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform

emnadmin

Respondent/Defendant:Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform
Court/s:High Court
Citation/s:17 January 2012, 2012 IEHC, Unreported
Nature of Proceedings:Application for a stay on the implementation of a deportation order pending the determination of an application for leave for judicial review.
Judgment Date/s:17 Jan 2012
Judge:Hogan J.
Category:Deportation
Keywords:Child, Citizenship, Dependant, Deportation, Deportation Order, Family Life (Right to), Removal Order, Third-Country national found to be illegally present, Union Citizen
URL:https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/bf3ea1b6-e98f-447c-a9c1-4eecdc63deea/2012_IEHC_8_1.pdf/pdf#view=fitH
Geographic Focus:Ireland

The Applicant sought a stay on the implementation of his deportation order.  The Court had vacated an earlier interim injunction that the Court had granted after it transpired that the Applicant had failed to disclose a material fact, (i.e., that he had already applied, unsuccessfully, to the High Court for injunction). The Applicant presented himself to immigration officials as Mr … Read More

Principles:
  1. Where the non Irish national parent of an Irish child seeks an injunction restraining his or her deportation, the Court cannot not look at the matter from the point of view of the non national parent, but must look at it from the perspective of the child.
  2. Article 41.2 of the Constitution of Ireland implies that all children, irrespective of the marital status of their parents, have the same equal rights to that which the Constitution postulates as representing the fundamental rights of children in a family setting,
  3. Non marital Irish children must be deemed to have an unenumerated personal right by virtue of Article 40.3.1 to have the same rights as children whose parents are married.
  4. Non marital Irish children have a right to the care and company of their parents.
Go Back

X Adeoye & Ors v Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform & Ors

emnadmin

Respondent/Defendant:X Adeoye & Ors
Court/s:High Court
Citation/s:Unreported
Nature of Proceedings:Judicial Review
Judgment Date/s:25 Nov 2011
Judge:Hogan, J
Category:Citizenship, Deportation
Keywords:Absconding, Citizenship, Country of Origin, Dependant, Deportation, Deportation Order, Entry Ban, Expulsion, Expulsion Decision, Expulsion Order, Family Life (Right to), Family Member, Family Unity (Right to), Foreigner, Minor, Non-EU National, Non-national, Removal Order
Country of Origin:Nigeria
Geographic Focus:Ireland

The Adeoye family sought to quash a decision of the (then) Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform (the Minister) pursuant to s. 3(11) of the Immigration Act 1999 to refuse to revoke Mr Adeoye’s deportation order. Mr Adoeye, an architectural student from Nigeria married to an Irish citizen, who had been unsuccessful in an asylum application, and who had … Read More

Principles:It behoves the judicial branch of government to ensure that the fundamental rights in respect of marriage and family life are taken seriously and given “life and reality”. In deciding whether to revoke a deportation order made against the spouse of a citizen, the deciding Minister must weigh the rights of the applicants fairly.
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

PJ & Ors 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:19 October 2011, 2011 IEHC 433, Unreported
Nature of Proceedings:Judicial Review
Judgment Date/s:19 Oct 2011
Judge:Hogan J.
Category:Deportation
Keywords:Child, Deportation, Deportation Order, Family Life (Right to), Protection (Humanitarian), Removal, Removal Order, Third-Country national found to be illegally present
URL:http://www.courts.ie/judgments.nsf/6681dee4565ecf2c80256e7e0052005b/c639b2992f99484c8025798800520265
Geographic Focus:Ireland

The applicants had sought leave to challenge their deportation orders, and the respondent refused to undertake not to deport them beyond a certain date. The applicants sought an interlocutory injunction restraining their deportation. The issues before the Court were whether the applicants were entitled to an interlocutory injunction pending the determination of the leave application, and, if so, whether the … Read More

Principles:

The phrase ‘stay of proceedings’ in Order 84 rule 20(7)(a) of the (N.B., pre 2012) Rules of the Superior Courts should be interpreted by reference to its basic underlying purpose, namely, to ensure that the High Court can make an order with suspensive effect in respect of both administrative, including deportation, as well as judicial decisions. The grant of a stay under r. 20(7(a) of the (N.B., pre 2012) Rules of the Superior Court is not governed by Campus Oil principles. Rather, an applicant is entitled to a stay pending the outcome of a leave application, absent special circumstances.

Special circumstances may include where the proceedings are doomed to fail or where there was no reasonable prospect that leave would be granted. While the mere fact that of medical resources in an applicant’s country of origin being significantly worse than those available in Ireland will not in itself justify judicial intervention, s. 3 of the Immigration Act 1999 presupposes that all relevant considerations, including humanitarian considerations, will be fairly examined prior to the making of a deportation order.

Go Back

BJSA (Sierra Leone) 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:12 October 2011, 2011 IEHC 381, Unreported
Nature of Proceedings:Hearing re an interlocutory injunction pending a determination of leave to seek judicial review.
Judgment Date/s:12 Oct 2011
Judge:Cooke J.
Category:Refugee Law
Keywords:Child, Citizenship, Dependant, Deportation, Deportation Order, Family Life (Right to), Protection (Application for International), Protection (Subsidiary), Refugee, Removal Order, Third-Country national found to be illegally present, Union Citizen
Country of Origin:Sierra Leone
URL:https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/9b80483a-8d32-45b8-b7eb-39fb194500bd/2011_IEHC_381_1.pdf/pdf#view=fitH
Geographic Focus:Ireland

In this case the applicant sought an interlocutory injunction restraining deportation pending the determination of an application for leave for judicial review of, inter alia, a decision refusing to grant him subsidiary protection on, essentially, two grounds: that the decision was invalid because the procedure in place under the Irish Regulations failed to properly transpose Article 4.1 of Directive 2004/83 … Read More

Principles:
  1. There is no deficiency in the Irish asylum legislative regime in respect of the failure to expressly transpose the provision in Article 4.2 of Directive 2004/38 re cooperation into Irish legislation.
  2. The co-operative nature of the first instance assessment phase in the Irish asylum process is reflected in ss. 8(1); 11(1); 11(2); 11C; and 16(6) of the Refugee Act 1996 as amended. 
  3. The deciding authority is not wholly relieved of any obligation of co-operation in appropriate cases. The process must conform to the normal rules of fair procedures.
  4. There is no requirement that a draft subsidiary protection decision be submitted to an applicant for comment before it is adopted.
  5. The right to an effective remedy by way of an appeal under Article 39 of the Directive 2005/85 applies only to subsidiary protection if it forms part of a unified procedure.
  6. There is no superior remedy in Irish law by way of appeal against a first instance determination of an asylum application, such that the procedures under the Refugee Act 1996 do not constitute a comparator with subsidiary protection for the purpose of applying the EU principle of equivalence.
  7. It is only since the requirements of Directive 2005/85 and, in particular, Annex 1, became effective in Irish law that the Commissioner is a “determining authority”, and that there is a right of appeal against a determination of the Commissioner to the Tribunal. Insofar as the provisions of the 1996 Act provide a two-stage determination for an asylum application including a right to an effective remedy by way of an appeal, this is only because of the manner in which the State adapted the arrangements of the 1996 Act in order to comply with the requirements of Directive 2005/85.
Go Back

SL v Minister for Justice and Law Reform

adminLeave a Comment

Respondent/Defendant:Minister for Justice and Law Reform
Court/s:High Court
Citation/s:2011 IEHC 370, Unreported
Nature of Proceedings:Judicial Review
Judgment Date/s:06 Oct 2011
Judge:Cooke J.
Category:Refugee Law
Keywords:Common European Asylum System (CEAS), Determining Asylum Authority, Protection (Application for International), Protection (Subsidiary), Refugee, Union Citizen
URL:http://www.courts.ie/judgments.nsf/6681dee4565ecf2c80256e7e0052005b/ef6ab8d82cb1ce3d80257935003a8a7c
Geographic Focus:Ireland

On 14 March 2011, the High Court had granted the applicant leave to seek to judicial review in respect of his claim that the procedures in place under the European Communities (Eligibility for Protection) Regulations 2006 (S.I. No. 518 of 2006), which implement in Irish law Directive 2004/83/EC, contain a structural flaw. The applicant, who had applied for subsidiary protection, … Read More

Principles:
  1. Directive 2005/85/EC applies only to asylum, except where a Member State avails of Article 3.4 of that Directive, and Ireland has not taken that course, and does not have a single combined procedure for asylum and subsidiary protection.
  2. In the alternative, the Minister for Justice and Law Reform is the ‘determining authority’ re subsidiary protection in light of Regulation 4 of the European Communities (Eligibility for Protection) Regulations 2006 (S.I. No. 518 of 2006).
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

          SN (Uganda) 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:2011 IEHC 451, Unreported
          Nature of Proceedings:Hearing of an application for judicial review of a decision of the Minister for Justice refusing subsidiary protection
          Judgment Date/s:27 Jul 2011
          Judge:Hogan J.
          Category:Refugee Law
          Keywords:Common Basic Principles, Common European Asylum System (CEAS), Persecution, Persecution (Actors of), Protection (Person Eligible for Subsidiary), Protection (Subsidiary), Refugee
          URL:https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/c1455e40-b6d4-4dd4-b529-4a9ef046d6ad/2011_IEHC_451_1.pdf/pdf#view=fitH
          Geographic Focus:Ireland

          The applicant had been granted leave to seek judicial review on one ground, namely whether the Minister’s decision to refuse to grant the applicant subsidiary protection contravened Regulations 5(1) and (2) of the European Communities (Subsidiary Protection) Regulations 2006 (S.I. No. 518 of 2006) by failing to consider and state a conclusion on the claim made by the applicant that … Read More

          Principles:
          1. In applying Regulation 5(2) of the European Communities (Subsidiary Protection) Regulations 2006 (S.I. No. 518 of 2006) the decision maker must:
            • ask himself whether an applicant suffered persecution or serious harm in the past. If the answer to this question is yes, the decision maker is required;
            • to ask whether there are good reasons to consider that such persecution or serious harm would not be repeated if the applicant was returned to her country of origin. If the answer to that question is yes, the decision maker is still required;
            • to apply the counter exception of Regulation 5(2) and ask whether there are compelling reasons arising out of previous persecution or serious harm alone such as might warrant a determination that the applicant is eligible for protection.
          2. Where a decision maker takes the view that there are many other possible causes for an applicant’s injuries, the decision maker is still obliged to address the question of whether the applicant did in fact suffer serious harm in the sense of the Regulations, namely, whether the injuries were inflicted by State actors in the manner alleged.
          3. If a decision maker is satisfied that there is no reason for considering that the previous harm would be repeated, he is still obliged to consider whether the historic serious harm may be such that the fact of its occurrence alone gives rise to compelling reasons for recognising eligibility.
          Go Back

          FGW v Refugee Appeals Tribunal & Ors

          adminLeave a Comment

          Respondent/Defendant:Refugee Appeals Tribunal & Ors
          Court/s:High Court
          Citation/s:[2011] IEHC 205, 5th May 2011, Unreported
          Nature of Proceedings:Judicial Review
          Judgment Date/s:05 May 2011
          Judge:Cooke J.
          Category:Refugee Law
          Keywords:Asylum, Asylum (Application for), Asylum application (Examination of an), Asylum Seeker, Child, Country of Origin, Minor, Protection (Application for International), Refugee
          Country of Origin:Liberia; Ivory Coast.
          URL:https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/526d84ca-db74-4d85-98c2-dc0038d65e74/2011_IEHC_205_1.pdf/pdf#view=fitH
          Geographic Focus:Ireland

          The Applicant was granted leave to seek to quash the decision of the Refugee Appeals Tribunal affirming a decision of the Refugee Applications Commissioner recommending against the applicants being declared refugees. The applicants were a mother and daughter with different countries of origin. The mother was born in Liberia, and the daughter was born in Ivory Coast. The mother’s claim … Read More

          Principles:
          1. Regulation 5(2) of the 2006 Regulations provides that evidence of previous serious harm is to be regarded as a “serious indication” – not as conclusive proof – of an applicant’s well founded fear unless there are good reasons to consider that such harm will not be repeated.
          2. Where there are two applicants for asylum who are dealt with together, it is incumbent on the decision maker to state clearly, however briefly, why the claim of each applicant is rejected.
          Go Back

          Case C-127/08 – Metock and Ors v Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform

          emnadmin

          Respondent/Defendant:Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform
          Court/s:ECJ, High Court
          Citation/s:Unreported
          Judgment Date/s:14 Mar 2008
          Judge:Finlay Geoghegan
          Category:EU Treaty Rights
          Keywords:EU Treaty Rights, Family Formation, Free Movement, Freedom of Movement (Right to), Residence Permit, Union Citizen
          URL:http://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?oqp=&for=&mat=or&jge=&td=%3BALL&jur=C%2CT%2CF&num=C-127%252F08&page=1&dates=&pcs=Oor&lg=&pro=&nat=or&cit=none%252CC%252CCJ%252CR%252C2008E%252C%252C%252C%252C%252C%252C%252C%252C%252C%252Ctrue%252Cfalse%252Cfalse&language=en&avg=&cid=13036373

          The Irish legislation transposing Directive 2004/38/EC provided that a national of a third-country who is a family member of a Union citizen may reside with or join that citizen in Ireland only if he is already lawfully resident in another Member State. In each of the cases a third-country national arrived in Ireland and applied unsuccessfully for asylum but while … Read More

          Principles:The right of a national of a non-EU citizen who is a family member of a union citizen to accompany or join that citizen cannot be made conditional on prior lawful residence in another Member State. In the case of spouses - it does not matter when or where the marriage took place or how the non-EU national spouse entered the host Member State. The Directive does not require that the EU citizen to have already founded a family at the time when he moves. It makes no difference whether the family members of an EU citizen enter the host Member State before or after becoming family members of the citizen.
          Go Back

          Bode and Ors v Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform

          emnadmin

          Respondent/Defendant:Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform
          Court/s:High Court, Supreme Court
          Citation/s:[2006] IEHC 341, [2007] IESC 62, Unreported
          Judgment Date/s:20 Dec 2007
          Judge:Murray C.J., Denham, Fennelly, Kearns and Finnegan JJ.
          Category:Citizenship, Deportation
          Keywords:Citizenship, Deportation, Deportation Order
          URL:https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/db10cc28-3d14-4dd0-b976-72674ef380c1/2006_IEHC_341_1.pdf/pdf#view=fitH, https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/2712d0e6-2e6b-4ddc-910c-4d4a1cf03237/2007_IESC_62_1.pdf/pdf#view=fitH

          In December 2004, the Minister announced revised arrangements for processing claims from non-national parents of Irish children for permission to remain in Ireland. A notice setting out details of the scheme was published in January 2005. This notice invited applications for permission to remain in the State from non-national parents of Irish born children before January 1 2005. The arrangements … Read More

          Principles:Applications pursuant to the “IBC/05” Scheme were properly subject to the requirements of the scheme as set out and which included a requirement of continuous residence. The Minister was not obliged to consider applicants’ constitutional or ECHR rights in determining applications pursuant to the scheme, such rights being appropriately considered pursuant to Section 3 of the Immigration Act 1999, as amended, on foot of proposed deportation.
          Go Back

          AN & Ors v Minister for Justice & Anor

          emnadmin

          Respondent/Defendant:Minister for Justice & Anor
          Court/s:Supreme Court
          Citation/s:[2007] IESC 44, Unreported
          Judgment Date/s:18 Oct 2007
          Category:Deportation, Refugee Law
          Keywords:Deportation, Family Unity (Right to), Minor, Refugee, Refugee Law, Refugee Status
          URL:https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/7183d6c0-4e62-4c68-9594-1f5a5e787526/2007_IESC_44_1.pdf/pdf#view=fitH
          References:Immigration Act 1999

          The Minister issued the parent and children applicants with deportation orders as failed asylum seekers pursuant to Section 3(2)(f) of the Immigration Act 1999. The applications for asylum were in the parent applicants’ names but not in the children’s names. The children had not been issued with refugee status determinations. The applicants challenged the children’s deportation orders on the basis … Read More

          Principles:

          Section 3(2)(f) of the Immigration Act 1999 cannot apply to children where there is no asylum application on their behalf. Where an application by a parent of a minor is unsuccessful, the child is entitled to apply for asylum based on his own circumstances. Where a child's parents are successful in an application for asylum, the child should benefit by virtue of the principle of family unity.

          Go Back

          SK & Anor v Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform and Ors

          emnadmin

          Respondent/Defendant:Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform and Ors
          Court/s:High Court
          Citation/s:[2007] IEHC 216, Unreported
          Judgment Date/s:28 May 2007
          Judge:Hanna
          Category:EU Treaty Rights
          Keywords:EU Treaty Rights, Free Movement, Freedom of Movement (Right to), Residence Permit, Union Citizen
          URL:https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/ae840163-3561-4b34-9196-23fed13550f4/2007_IEHC_216_1.pdf/pdf#view=fitH

          The first-named applicant applied for asylum on arrival in Ireland. He subsequently married the second-named applicant, an Estonian national. The first-named applicant had made a previous application for asylum in Belgium and a transfer order pursuant to Council Regulation (EC) No. 343/2003 was made to remove him to Belgium. The applicants requested that the first-named applicant be granted residency on … Read More

          Principles:

          An applicant’s dishonesty should weigh in the balance in considering rights at issue in an application for residency in the context of EU Treaty rights. Directive 2004/38/EC is intended to apply to families that were established in a Member State prior to moving to a host Member State.

          Go Back

          K v Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform & Ors


          Khazadi
          Respondent/Defendant:Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform and Ors
          Court/s:High Court
          Citation/s:Unreported
          Judgment Date/s:19 Apr 2007
          Judge:Gilligan
          Category:Refugee Law
          Keywords:Refugee, Refugee Law, Refugee Status
          References:Refugee Act 1996

          The applicant furnished medical reports as evidence in his appeal on foot of his application for refugee status. The reports stated, inter alia, that the physical evidence was consistent with his claim of torture. The Refugee Appeals Tribunal refused the applicant’s appeal on credibility grounds. The Tribunal’s decision then considered one of the medical reports and stated that if the … Read More

          Principles:

          The Court stated that the medical evidence should have been considered, weighed in the balance and a rational explanation given as to why it was being rejected in circumstances where the tribunal was making a finding that the applicant was not credible Medical evidence should be considered, weighed in the balance and a rational explanation given if it is being rejected if the decision maker is finding that against an applicant on credibility.

          Go Back

          Izevbekhai & Ors v Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform

          Respondent/Defendant:Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform
          Court/s:High Court
          Citation/s:Unreported
          Judgment Date/s:10 Nov 2006
          Judge:McKechnie
          Category:Deportation
          Keywords:Deportation, Deportation Order
          Country of Origin:Nigeria
          References:Izevbekhai and Ors v. Ireland, ECtHR, 17 May 2011; 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

          A Nigerian mother and her two daughters had been refused asylum in the State and subsequently made applications for leave to remain. Deportation orders were issued and the applicants sought to challenge these on the basis, inter alia, that the Minister failed to consider the daughters’ fear of female genital mutilation (FGM) in light of the European Convention on Human … Read More

          Principles:If there is an allegation that is not insubstantial that by returning individuals to a certain country they may be subjected to torture, then there is a special obligation on a decision-maker to consider all available material and in a general way identify the principal reasons why, in the face of specific material which reasonably leads to the conclusion that there is danger, that there is no danger. FGM constitutes torture
          Go Back

          DAG v Refugee Appeals Tribunal & Ors

          Respondent/Defendant:Refugee Appeals Tribunal & Ors
          Court/s:High Court
          Citation/s:Unreported
          Judgment Date/s:01 Jun 2006
          Judge:Feeney
          Category:Refugee Law
          Keywords:Refugee, Refugee Law, Refugee Status

          The Tribunal dismissed the applicant’s appeal on the bases that he had not proved that he had lived in Afgooye, Somalia, or that he was of the Bandhabow ethnic group, as he claimed. The Commissioner had found the applicant to be lacking in credibility because of his failure to mention a specific water shortage documented in the country of origin … Read More

          Principles:

          It is arguable that for the purposes of credibility determinations in asylum applications, inconsistencies must be seen as immaterial where extensive knowledge is otherwise demonstrated.

          Go Back

          NM v Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform

          emnadmin


          Msengi
          Respondent/Defendant:Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform
          Citation/s:[2006] IEHC 241, Unreported
          Judgment Date/s:26 May 2006
          Judge:Dunne J
          Category:Refugee Law
          Keywords:Refugee, Refugee Law, Refugee Status
          URL:https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/46771fc1-86d7-4963-9f21-e66669c12268/2006_IEHC_241_1.pdf/pdf#view=fitH

          The applicant had become HIV positive after being raped in South Africa, her country of origin. At her appeal before the Refugee Appeals Tribunal, the applicant’s legal representative submitted that being HIV positive in South Africa was tantamount to a death sentence, but did not make further submissions on the matter in terms of the principles of refugee law. The … Read More

          Principles:

          It is arguable that HIV positive women in South Africa constitute a particular social group. It is arguable that an onus devolves on the Tribunal to investigate and consider a matter once the matter is before it, notwithstanding that the matter has not been framed in terms of refugee law.

          Go Back

          Cosma v Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform

          emnadmin

          Respondent/Defendant:Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform
          Court/s:High Court, Supreme Court
          Citation/s:[2006] IESC 44, Unreported
          Judgment Date/s:02 May 2006
          Judge:Peart
          Category:Deportation, Residence
          Keywords:Deportation, Deportation Order
          Country of Origin:Romania
          URL:https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/3c3338e0-5c8e-4a25-a9c6-cf1400f7d718/2006_IESC_44_1.pdf/pdf#view=fitH

          The applicant, a failed asylum seeker from Romania, was issued with a deportation order. She requested a revocation of the order and furnished the Minister with a psychiatric report stating that she had suicidal ideations. The Minister refused to revoke the order, and the applicant sought to quash the deportation order on the basis that her deportation would be in … Read More

          Principles:In seeking to revoke a deportation order because of suicidal ideations an applicant must prove that there is a real and substantial risk of suicide due to the deportation. Analytical medical evidence is required for this purpose. Section 3(11) of the Immigration Act 1999 is not governed by Section 5 of the Illegal Immigrants (Trafficking) Act 2000.
          Go Back