H.I. (Albania) v Minister for Justice and Equality

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Court: High Court
• Judge: Mr. Justice Richard Humphreys
• Judgment Date: 19 April 2018
• Neutral Citation: [2018] IEHC 275
• Date: 19 April 2018
• Docket Number: [2011 891 J.R.] [2011 877 J.R.]

BETWEEN

H.I.

AND

H.I (ALBANIA)

APPLICANTS

AND

THE MINISTER FOR JUSTICE AND EQUALITY, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

AND

IRELAND

RESPONDENTS

BETWEEN

A.I., B.I.

AND

H.I. (A MINOR SUING BY HIS FATHER AND NEXT FRIEND A.I.)

APPLICANTS

AND

THE MINISTER FOR JUSTICE AND EQUALITY, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

AND

IRELAND

RESPONDENTS

[2018] IEHC 275

[2011 891 J.R.]

[2011 877 J.R.]

THE HIGH COURT

JUDICIAL REVIEW

Asylum, Immigration & Nationality – Certiorari – Subsidiary protection – Deportation

Facts: The applicants sought orders of certiorari of subsidiary protection and deportation decisions in two sets of proceedings. The only ground in the applications in relation to the deportation order was that the subsidiary protection refusal was not valid. The applicants contended that the first named respondent's conclusions related to the availability of state protection did not follow from the specific country of origin material referred to in the decision. The applicants had already been deported.

Mr. Justice Richard Humphreys dismissed the applications. The Court held that the first named respondent's decision was based not just on state protection but also on the lack of credibility, which was an independent ground.

JUDGMENT of Mr. Justice Richard Humphreys delivered on the 19th day of April, 2018

1 The applicants in these two related M.M.-based challenges (see M.M. v. Minister for Justice and Equality [2018] IESC 10) are an Albanian Roma family who are members of what is referred to in the papers as the Gabel community. The parents arrived in Ireland in August, 2005. The son, his wife and their son arrived in July, 2008. All applied for asylum and all were rejected at first instance and again on appeal. Significant credibility findings were made on appeal before the Refugee Appeals Tribunal against the adult applicants. Subsidiary protection was applied for and refused and deportation orders made. The applicants have since been deported.

2 I have heard helpful submissions from Mr. Michael Conlon S.C. (with Mr. Garry O'Halloran B.L.) for the applicants, and from Mr. Niall O'Hanlon B.L. for the respondents.

Relief sought

3 While the statement of grounds challenges the asylum refusal this was disclaimed by Mr. Conlan. The substantive relief thus consists of certiorari of the subsidiary protection and deportation decisions. The only ground in relation to the deportation orders was that the subsidiary protection refusal was not...