F. F. v Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform
| Jurisdiction | Ireland |
| Judge | Mr. Justice McDermott |
| Judgment Date | 17 April 2015 |
| Neutral Citation | [2015] IEHC 245 |
| Court | High Court |
| Date | 17 April 2015 |
[2015] IEHC 245
THE HIGH COURT
BETWEEN
AND
Asylum – Judicial review – Order of certiorari – Refugee Act 1996 (as amended) – The Illegal Immigrants (Trafficking) Act 2000
Facts: The applicant sought an order by way of judicial review for an order of certiorari quashing the decision of the respondent refusing the application for subsidiary protection and issuance of a deportation order. The applicant sought pardon in relation to the delay in applying for leave to apply for judicial review of the subsidiary protection decision or the deportation order.
Mr. Justice McDermott held that the application for condonation of delay and an order extending the time to apply for leave to apply for judicial review of the subsidiary protection decision or the deportation order would be denied. The Court held that the applicant failed to prove the existence of substantial grounds for the delay in applying for judicial review. The Court held that the respondent acted lawfully. Further, the Court found that the applicant had been granted refugee status in Mali and in Nigeria. The Court held that the respondent was correct in considering the insufficient alleged risk of harm to the applicant in Cameroon and thereby, assessing the subsidiary protection claim of the applicant on the alleged fear of being returned to Nigeria or Mali. The Court held that the respondent's order of deportation would be upheld.
1. The applicant seeks an order of certiorari quashing the decision of the respondent refusing his application for subsidiary protection dated 10 th December, 2009, and an order quashing the respondent's decision to issue a deportation order against the applicant dated 28 th January, 2010. The case was heard on a telescoped basis.
2. The applicant is a 49 year old national of Cameroon. He claims to have been a journalist for the Cameroonian Times and Director of Communications and Foreign Affairs with the Cameroonian Aid Action Association, an NGO for the underprivileged. As a result of his work and membership of the Southern Cameroon National Council (SCNC) he claims to have experienced persecution. He said that he was arrested, detained and tortured in Cameroon before fleeing to Nigeria in 1999, where he was recognised as a refugee in 2001. He claimed that he was threatened in Nigeria by the Cameroonian Ambassador, and an attempt was made on his life when a car driven by a Cameroonian diplomat deliberately tried to knock him down. He fled to Ghana in 2002 where he intended to apply for refugee status: however, the office was closed. He then moved to Mali where he claimed refugee status which was granted in 2003. He started to work in Mali as a human rights activist exposing corruption in Cameroon. He also became involved in the exposure of corruption in non-governmental organisations in Mali and, in particular, the misrepresentation of the prevalence of Female Genital Mutilation. He claimed that he was asked to give a presentation in Strasburg on human rights abuses, but that his application for a visa was refused. He contends that the Malian authorities refused to sign his UNHCR travel documents unless he paid a bribe. He paid the bribe and was thereby enabled to travel. He reported this to the police in Mali but was accused of making false accusations. When he attempted to leave Mali for Strasburg, he was initially prevented from doing so and had equipment and documentation confiscated, but was ultimately permitted to leave. The content of his presentation included material concerning widespread corruption, human rights abuses and the NGO's acceptance of bribes and suppression of information that FGM was widespread in Mali. He claims to have received death threats in Mali. He now claims in these proceedings that he has no right of residence in either Nigeria or Mali and cannot return to either country. It is impossible for him to return to Cameroon having regard to the persecution which he suffered there.
3. The applicant arrived in Ireland on 1 st September, 2005, and applied for refugee status the following day. He received negative recommendations from both the office of the Refugee Applications Commissioner and the Refugee Appeals Tribunal. He applied for subsidiary protection on 22 nd June, 2006, which was refused on 9 th December, 2009.
4. The applicant's application for refugee status states that his country of birth and country of origin is Cameroon, but in respect of "nationality" indicates that he is "stateless". The address provided initially was Malian. He completed another form on 2 nd September, 2005, in which his nationality is stated as (stateless) (Cameroonian) and his country of birth is again given as Cameroon and address "in own country" is stated to be "Malian".
5. In his application he states that he left Cameroon on 5 th February, 1998, and travelled to Mali where he was granted refugee status under the terms of the Geneva Convention. The applicant's claim for refugee status in Ireland was based upon a number of events said to have happened in Mali, as outlined above.
6. The applicant claimed that when he attempted to claim travel documents in accordance with his status as a refugee to attend the Thirty Six Session of the Rights of Women and Children in Strasburg organised by the International Institute of Human Rights, the immigration police demanded money before providing the necessary travel documents. The applicant paid the bribe and the travel documents were provided. He then complained about this to a friend who conveyed the complaint to the Ministry of Police Affairs.
7. On 27 th July, 2005, while attempting to leave Mali, the applicant was arrested at the airport by the immigration police concerning a complaint that he had unlawfully defamed the police and the Commission National Chargé des Refugies (CNCR). His belongings were searched and a number of videos concerning his investigation into FGM in Mali were confiscated. He was then allowed to proceed to Strasburg.
8. The applicant somehow retained one of the videos concerning this investigation which he presented at the Conference and as a result of which he claimed to have been threatened by the Malian authorities by email and phone.
9. As a result the applicant believed that he had "problems" with the immigration police, the Refugee Board in Mali (CNCR) and "some high Malian authorities".
10. The other reasons which he offered for seeking asylum in Ireland were that Ireland is an English speaking country where his children could continue their education, he wished to register at Trinity College Dublin at the Department of Theology under a master's student programme and he had relatives in Ireland.
11. In his s. 11 interview the applicant claimed that he was stateless, but that he had been born in Cameroon. He was a graduate of the University of Lagos and worked as a teacher and journalist in Cameroon. From 2000 he was Director of Communications and Foreign Affairs for Cameroon Aid Action (an NGO). In the interview he outlined how he fled Cameroon and obtained asylum in Nigeria. He was subsequently granted asylum in Mali where he lived for three years from 2002 prior to travelling to France for the Conference and on to Ireland on his Malian 1951 Geneva Convention travel documents. He maintained that he faced two difficulties in Mali, firstly, a problem with the police arising out of his allegation and secondly, a problem with the authorities because of his exposure of FGM.
12. ORAC regarded his claim as one based on allegations of persecution in Mali for political opinions. Mali was regarded by the applicant as his country of habitual residence. It was noted that the applicant was not claiming that he was persecuted in Mali, but that he would be on his return. The credibility of his claim was analysed and rejected.
13. In his notice of appeal the applicant claimed that his country of habitual residence was Mali.
14. At the hearing before the Tribunal the applicant's nationality was recognised as Cameroonian, but that he had refugee status and habitual residence in Mali. In the course of the evidence the applicant acknowledged that he had not experienced any difficulties whilst in Mali. The Tribunal's analysis of the applicant's claim states:-
"This applicant accepts that he did not have any difficulties in Mali while he was living there. However, he claims that he would be persecuted if he returned to Mali on account of the fact that he published that Female Genital Mutilation was practised in Mali. He made this presentation to a Human Rights Conference in Strasburg. He made that presentation in his capacity as a journalist and a human rights activist. He now claims he would be killed if he returned to Mali on account of being involved in publicising the fact that Female Genital Mutilation was widespread in Mali."
The claim was considered against country of origin information which indicated that though there was government control of television and one of more than 125 radio stations, the broadcasting media presented a wide range of views including those critical of the government. The law regulated the press and provided for substantial criminal penalties, including imprisonment for libel and for public injury to the Head of State, other officials and foreign diplomats. However, the government had never prosecuted journalists on criminal libel charges. His claim was found not to be credible or well founded.
15. These determinations were not challenged by way of judicial review.
...To continue reading
Request your trial
-
F.F. v The Minister for Justice Equality & Law Reform
...from an order of the High Court (McDermott J.) made on 17 th April, 2015, for the reasons set out in a written judgment of that date ( [2015] IEHC 245) refusing leave to apply by way of judicial review seeking inter alia an order of certiorari quashing the decision issued by the respondent ......