FL v The International Protection Appeals Tribunal
| Jurisdiction | Ireland |
| Judge | Ms Justice Tara Burns |
| Judgment Date | 25 February 2021 |
| Neutral Citation | [2021] IEHC 126 |
| Docket Number | RECORD NO.: 2020/135JR |
| Year | 2021 |
| Court | High Court |
AND
[2021] IEHC 126
Tara Burns
RECORD NO.: 2020/135JR
THE HIGH COURT
JUDICIAL REVIEW
Judicial review – International protection – Credibility – Applicant seeking an order of certiorari of the first respondent’s decision to reject his international protection claim – Whether the first respondent erred in its determination that the applicant was not credible
Facts: The applicant, a national of Albania, entered Ireland’s jurisdiction on 30 December 2018 and made an application for international protection on 2 January 2019. The applicant’s claim was based on his assertion that he was in an intimate relationship, when he was 19, with a Muslim woman of a similar age for approximately 11 months. After the relationship ended, her brother threatened the applicant that he must marry his sister as a matter of honour, in light of the nature of the relationship. These threats escalated into a significant physical assault being perpetrated on the applicant which culminated in another incident when a gun was produced. Following on from this last asserted incident the applicant fled Albania in fear that he would be killed. The applicant claimed that he would face persecution and/or a real risk of suffering harm if he returned. The applicant’s international protection claim was rejected by the International Protection Office. An appeal, by way of an oral hearing, was held before the first respondent, the International Protection Appeals Tribunal, which also rejected the applicant’s claim. Leave to apply by way of judicial review seeking an order of certiorari of the first respondent’s decision was granted by the High Court on 2 March 2020. The applicant asserted that the first respondent erred in its determination that the applicant was not credible and in its consideration of its alternative findings regarding the applicant’s claim.
Held by Burns J that the applicant had failed to establish an error on the first respondent’s part affecting the lawfulness of its rejection of the applicant’s international protection claim on the grounds advanced.
Burns J held that she would refuse the applicant the relief sought and make an order for the respondents’ costs as against the applicant.
Relief refused.
The Applicant is a national of Albania who entered this jurisdiction on 30 December 2018 and made an application for international protection on 2 January 2019.
The Applicant's claim was based on his assertion that he was in an intimate relationship, when he was 19, with a Muslim woman of a similar age for approximately 11 months. After the relationship ended, her brother threatened the Applicant that he must marry his sister as a matter of honour, in light of the nature of the relationship. These threats escalated into a significant physical assault being perpetrated on the Applicant which culminated in another incident when a gun was produced. Following on from this last asserted incident the Applicant fled Albania in fear that he would be killed. The Applicant claimed that he would face persecution and/or a real risk of suffering harm if he returned.
The Applicant's international protection claim was rejected by the International Protection Office. An appeal, by way of an oral hearing, was held before the First Respondent which also rejected the Applicant's claim.
Leave to apply by way of Judicial Review seeking an Order of Certiorari of the First Respondent's decision was granted by the High Court on 2 March 2020.
The Applicant asserts that the First Respondent erred in its determination that the Applicant was not credible and in its consideration of its alternative findings regarding the Applicant's claim.
The First Respondent dealt with the Applicant's claim in the following manner:-
“The Applicant's account
34. The Appellant's evidence was problematic at times, including on central matters. His account also featured inconsistencies. Examples of this now follow.
35. The Appellant stated at the hearing that he kept the relationship with his girlfriend private. In his interview, however, he said that his friends knew about it (Q 14). When asked about this at the hearing by the Presenting Officer, the Appellant appeared unsure of himself, saying that they did in fact know before quickly changing his mind. He then paused and said in English “I've said yes, so I'll keep yes, I mean I've said no I'll keep no”. The Tribunal informed the Appellant that the important thing was to tell the truth – he was free to correct his evidence if needed and he did not need to “keep” or stick by a particular answer. The Appellant maintained that he wanted to keep his answer given earlier at the hearing – i.e. that his friends did not know about it. He went on to state, somewhat confusingly, that they had asked him about it, but he lied to them and denied that he was in a relationship. He appeared to indicate that they did in fact know about it, but he hadn't told them himself and that was why he said no. The Appellant had to be asked questions on this topic a number of times to clarify his evidence – he did not ultimately give a clear answer. His evidence was lacking in coherence and clarity and appeared evasive. This gave rise to concerns about his credibility. This was an instance, of which there were several, where the Appellant did not answer a direct question asked of him and appeared desirous to avoid the topic. Allowances must be used made for the fact that an interpreter was used; however, the Appellant had an excellent standard of English and indeed spoke in English at times throughout the hearing.
36. The Appellant's evidence that the relationship was a secret is entirely at odds with his account of how the couple conducted themselves over their 11 months together. He said they met roughly four times per week in public places like cafes and parks. He said they went for walks, to the mountains and so forth. They also checked into hotels in the daytime to have private time together. When asked why they met in public places, if there was a need for secrecy, the Appellant did not provide a reasonable explanation. If his relationship was, as he contends, out of step with Albanian attitudes (including the attitude held by his girlfriend's brother) then it is implausible that the Appellant and [his ex-girlfriend] were willing to be seen socialising together publicly so frequently. The Appellant's account did not hang together on this central matter.
37. This matter goes to the heart of the alleged fear; the Appellant stated that there is an “old law” that means that you must marry a girl that you are dating, and he was fearful that [his ex-girlfriend's] brother would kill him because of this. He said everyone knows about this law in Albania. He gave no detail about this “law” – itself problematic – however his account that he is at real risk of harm because he had a relationship that did not culminate in marriage is completely undercut by his willingness to go on dates, in public, with his girlfriend. There was a risk at all times of people they know seeing them. This did not appear to concern the Appellant. This is at odds with his assertion that he is at risk of harm because of the relationship. As above, how secret the relationship in fact was is a matter that he has not been consistent on.
38. The Appellant was vague and incoherent on other matters. For example, he told the IPO that the reason that he did not go to the hospital after the attack by several assailants was that the injuries were not serious. However he told the Tribunal that the injuries were serious and that he did not go to the hospital because he was not the kind of person who likes people to know about his problems. The two accounts did not appear to align and the Tribunal asked the Appellant to clarify the matter. The Appellant then appeared to confuse himself by alternating between stating that the injuries were serious but also emphasising that he was not bleeding and had no more than superficial injuries which did not require hospital treatment. He did not appear able to settle on a final version of the severity of the injuries. It appeared to the tribunal that the Appellant was attempting to reconcile two different accounts in a manner that lacked credibility.
39. The Appellant claims to have been accosted by his girlfriend's brother, always in the same area. He was asked by the IPO why he continued to frequent this area. He did not have a reasonable explanation for this. That the Appellant did not take the basic step of avoiding the area where he was encountered by his girlfriend's brother calls into question the credibility of his account. It is implausible that he continued to visit the same area of town where he was encountered on four separate occasions, in reasonably quick succession, by his ex-girlfriends brother.
40. A further incongruous matter is the Appellant's failure to go to the police. He did not provide a reasonable explanation for this, in the Tribunal's assessment. He said that he did not ask them for help, as he was not rich or powerful. He thought that they might laugh at him. He gave no basis for this belief, no prior personal experiences or anything of that kind. As the Appellant did not attempt to get police assistance, it is difficult to judge whether, in fact, it would be forthcoming. This matter will be considered further below under state protection, however for the purposes of credibility assessment his failure to contact the police is taken to undermine his account.
41. The Appellant stated at the hearing that during the attack by the men nothing was said to him beyond the men swearing. He said...
To continue reading
Request your trial