A.A. (Pakistan) v The International Protection Appeals Tribunal

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: Mr. Justice Richard Humphreys
• Judgment Date: 31 July 2018
• Neutral Citation: [2018] IEHC 497
• Docket Number: [2017 No. 1021 J.R.]
• Court: High Court
• Date: 31 July 2018

[2018] IEHC 497

THE HIGH COURT

JUDICIAL REVIEW

Humphreys J.

[2017 No. 1021 J.R.]

BETWEEN

A.A. (PAKISTAN)

APPLICANT

AND

THE INTERNATIONAL PROTECTION APPEALS TRIBUNAL

AND

THE MINISTER FOR JUSTICE AND EQUALITY

RESPONDENTS

Immigration and asylum – Subsidiary protection – Certiorari – Applicant seeking partial certiorari of the decision of the respondent in relation to subsidiary protection – Whether the respondent failed to apply the correct test

Facts: The applicant, a citizen of Pakistan, moved to the UK on a student visa on 22nd July, 2012. On 28th September, 2015, he left the UK for Ireland after the visa expired. He then sought asylum, which was refused by the International Protection Office (IPO). On 25th August, 2017, he appealed to the first respondent, the International Protection Appeals Tribunal (IPAT). On 11th December, 2017, the IPAT rejected the appeal in a decision by Mr Russell. The decision accepted some, although not all, of the material facts of the claim, particularly that the applicant had been assaulted by an uncle in relation to a property dispute. The tribunal member held that no Convention nexus had been established, so state protection or international relocation did not arise. The asylum claim was rejected and that aspect of the decision was not challenged. As regards the subsidiary protection claim, the tribunal member concluded that, given that it was put to the applicant that he could move to Karachi, a city of 20 million people, and could enjoy safety and anonymity there, and given that the tribunal was not convinced by the applicant's response, an internal relocation option existed. The applicant applied to the High Court seeking partial certiorari of the decision of the IPAT at paras. 7.4 and 8.1 in relation to subsidiary protection. The applicant alleged: (i) irrationality, including relying on oral evidence by the presenting officer; (ii) breach of fair procedures, where internal relocation was not an issue before the IPO, where submissions on it were not invited and the applicant was not made aware that it would be an issue; (iii) failure to have regard to local circumstances, personal circumstances and precise and up-to-date country information; and (iv) failure to apply the correct test.

Held by Humphreys J that: (i) the presenting officer's questions could not be characterised as giving evidence; (ii) the complaint of breach of fair procedures was fundamentally misconceived; (iii) no point under the heading of lack of consideration of relevant country material had been made out; and (iv) the correct test involved considering whether it was reasonable for the applicant to move to Karachi and the tribunal did not ask that question, giving rise to grounds for certiorari.

Humphreys J held that there would be an order of certiorari removing for the purpose of being quashed paras. 7.4 and 8.1 of the IPAT decision of 11th December, 2017 and an order remitting the balance of the applicant's subsidiary protection application as it related to the internal relocation issue to the same tribunal member, Mr Russell, for consideration in accordance with this judgment.

Relief granted.

JUDGMENT of Mr. Justice Richard Humphreys delivered on the 31st day of July, 2018

1 The applicant is a citizen of Pakistan. He claims that he suffered assaults from an uncle in relation to a property dispute in 2005 and again in 2012. He gave some contradictory evidence in relation to the situation thereafter, having told the IPO that threatening phone calls were made when he was in the U.K. but telling the tribunal that there had been no contact since 2012.

2 On 22nd July, 2012, he moved to the U.K. on a student visa. On 28th September, 2015, he left the U.K. for Ireland after the visa expired. He then sought asylum, which was refused by the IPO. On 25th August, 2017, he appealed to the IPAT. On 11th December, 2017, the IPAT rejected the appeal in a decision by Mr. Nicholas Russell. The decision accepted some, although not all, of the material facts of the claim, particularly that the applicant had been assaulted by an uncle in relation to a property dispute. The tribunal member held that no Convention nexus had been established, so state protection or international relocation did not arise. The asylum claim was rejected and that aspect of the decision is not challenged.

3 As regards the subsidiary...