B.K. (Albania) v Refugee Appeals Tribunal

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: Mr. Justice Richard Humphreys
• Judgment Date: 31 October 2017
• Neutral Citation: [2017] IEHC 746
• Docket Number: [2016 No. 430 J.R.]
• Court: High Court
• Date: 31 October 2017

BETWEEN

B.K. (ALBANIA)

APPLICANT

AND

THE REFUGEE APPEALS TRIBUNAL, THE MINISTER FOR JUSTICE AND EQUALITY, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

AND

IRELAND

RESPONDENTS

[2017] IEHC 746

[2016 No. 430 J.R.]

THE HIGH COURT

JUDICIAL REVIEW

Asylum, Immigration & Nationality – Rejection of asylum claims – Refugee Appeals Tribunal – Inappropriate evidence – Membership of particular social group

Facts: The applicant sought an order for quashing the decision of the Refugee Appeals Tribunal ('Tribunal')/first respondent for rejecting the applicant's asylum claim. The applicant cited personal feud for the reason of his persecution in the country of origin. The applicant argued that he and his family members were targeted due to the applicant's relationship with a woman from other social group.

Mr. Justice Richard Humphreys dismissed the proceedings. The Court held that the Tribunal's finding that the applicant's oral evidence was inappropriate had been cogent. The Court held that the grounds to appeal to the Tribunal provided no support to any of the points made by the applicant at the hearing. The Court noted that the applicant had failed to demonstrate that the Tribunal's decision was invalid in law. The Court found that there were inconsistencies in the information provided by the applicant before the Tribunal.

JUDGMENT of Mr. Justice Richard Humphreys delivered on the 31st day of October, 2017

1 The applicant claims that he began a relationship with a woman in Albania in April, 2012 and that when he sought to end this relationship in October, 2012 he was confronted and threatened by the woman's brothers, who asked him to marry their sister or be killed. He says that he went to Greece on 20th December, 2012 and that the brothers located him in Greece, where he was beaten and tortured. He says that he fled Greece and arrived in Ireland on 20th July, 2013. In August, 2013 he says that his father was murdered by the woman's brothers.

2 On 2nd April, 2014 he was caught driving a car without a driving licence, and that intervention appears to have been rapidly followed by an asylum application on the 9th April, 2014. On 29th September, 2014 he was notified that his asylum claim had been rejected by the Refugee Applications Commissioner. An appeal to the tribunal was rejected on the 5th May, 2016. Leave to challenge that decision was granted by MacEochaidh J. on the 28th November, 2016.

3 The application was made out of time but no objection is being pressed by the respondents. I have heard helpful submissions from Mr. Michael Conlon S.C. (with Mr. Garry O'Halloran B.L.) for the applicant and Ms. Sinead McGrath B.L. for the respondents.

Is there an error in relation to the claim that the applicant is being persecuted by reason of membership of a social group?

4 Ms. McGrath has raised a pleading issue in relation to this question. Three grounds are pleaded in the statement of grounds; a lack of clarity as to the basis of the rejection, a failure to assess whether the claim fell within the ground of membership of a particular social group, and an error on the facts. I will come to the third point later but points 1 and 2 as pleaded were not pressed in the form pleaded. In any event no basis has been made out for them. Instead, a new point was raised as to an error by reason of the applicant being persecuted because he is a member of a social group. That point has not been pleaded and it seems to me that the applicant is not entitled to raise it. But in case I am wrong I will deal with that point now.

5 The error relating to the social group now being advanced seems to be made on two separate grounds (see the letter of the 6th April, 2016 sent to the tribunal after the hearing). Firstly, ' some asserted societal norm regarding courtship which did not ordinarily allow him to carry on a relationship and end it of his own violation' and a secondary argument that because family members who were subsequently targeted could claim membership of a social group, such protection should apply to the applicant as the original target.

The courtship-as-social-group argument

6 The tribunal held there was no satisfactory evidence that persons in this situation were persecuted by reason of their membership of a social group. Hypothetically, if in a particular country there was a particular mating ritual, and if one dissented from that procedure, persecution would result, then that could involve membership of a social...