C v International Protection Appeals Tribunal

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: Mr Justice Max Barrett
• Judgment Date: 21 December 2018
• Neutral Citation: [2018] IEHC 755
• Docket Number: 2018 No. 516 JR
• Court: High Court
• Date: 21 December 2018

[2018] IEHC 755

THE HIGH COURT

Barrett J.

2018 No. 516 JR

C.

Applicant

v.

THE INTERNATIONAL PROTECTION APPEALS TRIBUNAL

AND

THE MINISTER FOR JUSTICE AND EQUALITY

Respondents

International protection – Evidence – Subsidiary protection – Applicant seeking subsidiary protection – Whether the respondent validly reached its conclusion concerning the applicant

Facts: The first respondent, the International Protection Appeals Tribunal (IPAT), on one set of evidence in one application (Evidence A), concluded that Mr O, a subsidiary protection applicant, had established he is gay. On another set of evidence in a separate application (Evidence B), IPAT concluded that Mr C, a subsidiary protection applicant, did not establish he is gay. Evidence A/Evidence B respectively included partly inconsistent evidence from Mr C/Mr O about a claimed gay relationship between the two men. Mr C applied to the High Court seeking, inter alia, an order of certiorari quashing the IPAT decision concerning him.

Held by Barrett J that, having noted that the impugned decision indicated that Mr O’s evidence (at Mr C’s appeal) was considered credible as to his own sexuality but that Mr C’s general credibility was not established, no legal flaw presents in this: Mr C’s application was his to establish; Mr O aimed to provide corroborative evidence; and IPAT validly reached its conclusion concerning Mr C by reference to all of Evidence B. Barrett J held that the form of reasoning as offered in the impugned decision accords with e.g., Meadows v Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform [2010] IESC 3 and Mallak v Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform [2012] 3 I.R. 297.

Barrett J held that all the reliefs sought must be refused.

Reliefs refused.

JUDGMENT of Mr Justice Max Barrett delivered on 21st December, 2018.

1 On (i) one set of evidence in one application (“Evidence A”), IPAT concluded that Mr O, a subsidiary protection applicant, had established he is gay; (ii) another set of evidence in a separate application (“Evidence B”), IPAT concluded that Mr C, a subsidiary protection applicant, did not establish he is gay. Evidence A/Evidence B respectively included, inter alia, what IPAT was entitled to (and did) find, in each application, was partly inconsistent evidence from Mr C/Mr O about a claimed gay relationship between the two men. Mr C seeks, inter alia, an order of certiorari quashing the IPAT decision concerning him.

...