CNK v Minister for Justice and Equality

JurisdictionIreland
JudgeMr. Justice Colm MacEochaidh
Judgment Date25 July 2016
Neutral Citation[2016] IEHC 424
CourtHigh Court
Docket Number[2015 No. 379 JR]
Date25 July 2016

[2016] IEHC 424

THE HIGH COURT

JUDICIAL REVIEW

Mac Eochaidh J.

[2015 No. 379 JR]

BETWEEN
C. N. K.
APPLICANT
AND
THE MINISTER FOR JUSTICE AND EQUALITY
RESPONDENT

Asylum, Immigration & Nationality – The Illegal Immigrants (Trafficking) Act 2000 (as amended) – The Refugee Act, 1996 – Failed asylum seeker – Refusal to revoke order of deportation – Leave to seek judicial review – Absence of substantial grounds – Applicability of relevant laws – Certiorari – Audi alteram partem

Facts: Following the refusal of the respondent to revoke the order of deportation of the applicant, the applicant had now filed an application for leave to seek judicial review of the respondent's decision and an order of certiorari to quash the same. The applicant contended that the impugned decision was in breach of principles of audi alteram partem as the applicant was not given a chance to be heard concerning the use of the UK case law by the decision-maker. The core plea of the applicant concerned his treatment in the country of origin as a failed asylum seeker. The applicant contended that the respondent's decision to refuse revocation order was bad in law as it took into consideration the changed laws not applicable to the applicant and did not take into account the material presented by the applicant. The respondent contended that the respondent gave a decision on the laws applicable to the applicant and on the relevant material available to the respondent.

Mr. Justice Colm MacEochaidh refused the application of the applicant for leave to seek judicial review. The Court held that the applicant presented no substantial grounds or reasons before the respondent to revoke the order of refusal of deportation. The Court, in line with the guidelines given in the decision in Kangethe v. Minister for Justice Equality & Law Reform [2010 IEHC 351, took into consideration the limited grounds on which the decision of the minister to refuse revocation could be reviewed. The Court held that the minister was not obliged to engage into debate with the applicant or give an extensive reasoning to the applicant for his decision to refuse the revocation of deportation order, once it was clear that the decision was in accordance with the applicable laws, after taking into consideration the representations and submissions made by the applicant. The Court held that the respondent, based on the vast material, had concluded that the alleged threat to the applicant, as failed asylum seekers on being returned home, was not made out. The Court held that the applicant failed to prove how he would be harmed on his return as a failed asylum seeker. The Court held that it was not tenable to say that the respondent relied on a refugee application that was deemed to be withdrawn for deciding the matter of asylum of the applicant. The Court held that the revocation application was not supported by the plea that the applicant feared his life and freedom would be under threat on expulsion from the state. The Court held that the matter of deportation was a matter of domestic law and no element of the European law was at issue as relied on by the applicant.

JUDGMENT of Mr. Justice Colm MacEochaidh delivered on the 25th day of July, 2016
1

This is an application for leave to seek judicial review of the Minister's decision refusing to revoke the deportation order of the 8th November, 2011. It is required to be made in accordance with the provisions of s. 5 of the Illegal Immigrants (Trafficking) Act 2000 (as amended). Substantial grounds as to illegality of the decision must be made out to attract a grant of leave.

2

The ‘examination of file’ supporting the original deportation order is exhibited by the applicant. It records that the applicant applied for asylum in Ireland on the 7th July, 2004, under the name C.K.N. giving a date of birth of the 18th March, 1976. The EURODAC fingerprint database revealed that he had sought asylum in France on the 13th November, 2003, under the name K. N. with a date of birth of the 18th March, 1976. He also sought asylum in the United Kingdom on the 16th February, 2011, under the name C. N. with a date of the birth of the 9th November, 1982. The applicant was removed to Ireland from the United Kingdom in March 2011. He was then apprehended in Belfast on the 18th June, 2011. The officials were not in a position to say how long the applicant had been in the State having regard to the movements outside the State of which they were aware. It was recorded that the applicant was single with no known family connections in the State; his only connection with the State was via his application for asylum. No representations were received from or on behalf of the applicant. The prohibition of refoulement application in s. 5 of the Refugee Act 1996 was addressed having regard to the content of his asylum application in view of the fact that he made no representations regarding the proposal to be deported. The decision records that during the course of the assessment of his asylum application he decided that he would transfer to France. He failed to cooperate with this effort and absconded.

3

The French authorities extended the time within which to affect transfer to France but that expired on the 9th June, 2006. Ireland then proceeded with his asylum application. The applicant failed to attend for interview and his application was deemed to be withdrawn. O.R.A.C. made a recommendation that he should not be declared a refugee. Correspondence addressed to him containing information about these developments was returned to O.R.A.C. marked ‘unclaimed.’ He was informed of the proposal to make a deportation order and invited to make representations but did not do so.

4

A take-back request was received from the United Kingdom, and he was duly transferred from the United Kingdom on the 30th March, 2011, in accordance with Dublin II Regulation.

5

The applicant subsequently moved from Ireland to the United Kingdom and as a result Ireland received a second take-back request on the 22nd June, 2011. Again Ireland agreed to take the applicant back.

6

Notwithstanding the fact that no representations had been made in relation to the proposal to deport, country of origin information was sourced and the security and political situation of the country was described. Information concerning the position of failed asylum seekers returning to the Democratic Republic of Congo was included in the recommendation. A U.N.H.C.R. report was the source of a finding that a Congolese human rights organisation with an office at the airport was closely monitoring the position of failed returning asylum seekers and the N.G.O. was reported as saying:-

‘…they are not aware of any of these persons detained and/or tortured upon return. They reported that some of the failed asylum-seekers had to pay some money to the police.’

7

The officials concluded that repatriating the applicant to DR Congo is not contrary to s. 5 of the Refugee Act 1996. The Minister duly made the order on the 8th November, 2011.

Application for Revocation
8

Burns Kelly Corrigan solicitors made application on the 1st May, 2015, for revocation of the deportation order. The application notes the applicant's interest in applying to re-enter the asylum process under s. 17(7) of the Refugee Act and also to apply for subsidiary protection. The letter notes that the applicant did not make submissions on the proposal to deport because he was not in the State at the time. The principle case advanced on behalf of the applicant was that he faced a risk as a failed asylum seeker if returned to the Democratic Republic of Congo.

The Minister's Decision
9

The Minister's official summarises the case made in favour of revocation and expressly refers to the report entitled ‘Unsafe Return Refoulement of Congolese Asylum Seekers’ dated 24th November, 2011, by Ms. Catherine Ramos. The official's text addressing this issue is as follows:-

‘It is noted that the applicant's solicitors have stated that the deportation order signed in respect of him should be revoked as they state that the applicant is at risk of harm if returned to DR Congo as he will be a failed asylum seeker. Extensive country of origin information has been submitted on the applicant's behalf, which has been read and considered.

Reference was made to the alleged unsafe return of failed asylum seekers to DR Congo, citing a report entitled ‘Unsafe Return Refoulement of Congolese Asylum Seekers’, dated 24th November, 2011 and compiled by Ms. Catherine Ramos, a trustee of a charity called Justice First which can be found at the following link: Unsafe Return Refoulement of Congolese Asylum Seekers. A Report compiled by Catherine Ramos (24/11/2011) http://justicefirst.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/UNSAFE-RETURN-DECEMBER-5TH-2011.pdf

However, the UK Home Office state, in a document entitled ‘Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) Policy Bulletin 2/2014’ (which can be found at: United Kingdom: Home Office, Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC): Country Policy Bulletin, 22 October 2014, DRC Policy Bulletin 2/2014, available at: http://www.refworld.org/docid/ 544a19fe4.html) that:

‘The report was based on investigations undertaken by Ms. Ramos, including visits to Kinshasa, of the experiences of 14 enforced and three voluntary Congolese returnees in the period 2006 to 2011. It alleges that enforced and voluntary returnees to DRC are routinely detained, raped, tortured and generally seriously victimised on the grounds that they have, in seeking asylum, betrayed their country.’

The Home Office goes on to state:

The ‘Unsafe Return [1]’ report was considered and its recommendations addressed in the DRC Country Policy Bulletin 1/2012 published November 2012 (CPB 1/2012). The bulletin concluded that the report, when considered in the totality of country information, did not demonstrate...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • Z.K v The Minister for Justice and Others
    • Ireland
    • Court of Appeal (Ireland)
    • 20 Octubre 2023
    ...PA (Albania) v. Refugee Appeals Tribunal [2014] IEHC 493, MA v. Refugee Appeals Tribunal [2015] IEHC 528, CNK v. Minister for Justice [2016] IEHC 424, AMA v. Minister for Justice [2016] IEHC 466 and Straczek v. Minister for Justice [2019] IEHC 29 S. 258, Social Welfare (Consolidation) Act, ......
  • C.M. (Zimbabwe) v The Chief International Protection Officer
    • Ireland
    • High Court
    • 10 Mayo 2018
    ...Refugee Appeals Tribunal [2015] IEHC 528, (Unreported, Mac Eochaidh J., 31st July, 2015), C.N.K. v. Minister for Justice and Equality [2016] IEHC 424 (Unreported, MacEochaidh J., 25th July, 2016), B.W. v. Refugee Appeals Tribunal [2017] IECA 296 (Unreported, Court of Appeal, 15th Novembe......
  • K v Minister for Justice and Equality
    • Ireland
    • Court of Appeal (Ireland)
    • 24 Junio 2022
    ...150; Ezeani v. Minister for Justice and Equality [2011] IESC 23; MA v. RAT [2015] IEHC 528; CNK v. Minister for Justice and Equality [2016] IEHC 424; CM (Zimbabwe) v. CIPO [2018] IEHC 410 to that 70 . The Addendum in this case drew the Minister's attention to five specific and identified qu......
  • M v International Protection Appeals Tribunal
    • Ireland
    • High Court
    • 19 Diciembre 2019
    ...[2013] 2 IR 555, Mac Eochaidh J. in M.A. v. Refugee Appeals Tribunal [2015] IEHC 528 and C.N.K. v. Minister for Justice & Equality [2016] IEHC 424, and Peart J. in B.W. v. Refugee Appeals Tribunal [2017] IECA 296, it is clear that it is only when a decision-maker, here the IPAT, contemplate......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT