A (HAAA) (Kuwait) v Minister for Justice and Others
| Jurisdiction | Ireland |
| Judge | Mr. Justice Henry Abbott, |
| Judgment Date | 22 September 2010 |
| Neutral Citation | [2010] IEHC 332 |
| Docket Number | [No. 940 J.R./2008] |
| Court | High Court |
| Date | 22 September 2010 |
[2010] IEHC 332
THE HIGH COURT
BETWEEN
AND
AND
ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS (TRAFFICKING) ACT 2000 S5
REFUGEE ACT 1996 S11
IMAFU v MIN FOR JUSTICE & ORS UNREP PEART 9.12.2005 2005/31/6380 2005 IEHC 416
R (I) v RAT UNREP COOKE 24.7.2009 2009/47/11866 2009 IEHC 353
M (N) v MIN FOR JUSTICE UNREP MCGOVERN 7.5.2008 2008/38/8327 2008 IEHC 130
F (MM) & L (L) v RAT UNREP CLARKE 19.3.2010 2010 IEHC 134
R (JB) v RAT UNREP PEART 31.7.2007 2007/52/11193 2007 IEHC 288
IMMIGRATION
Asylum
Credibility - Distinction between documented and undocumented tribal people - Whether Tribunal entitled to conclude that applicant had been untruthful - Whether credibility finding legitimate - Whether adequate reasons provided by Tribunal - Imafu v Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform [2005] IEHC 416, (Unrep, Peart J, 9/12/2005), IR v Refugee Appeals Tribunal [2009] IEHC 510, (Unrep, Cooke J, 26/11/2009) and MMF and LL v Refugee Appeals Tribunal [2010] IEHC 134, (Unrep, Clark J, 19/3/2010) followed; NM v Minister for Justice [2008] IEHC 130, (Unrep, McGovern J, 7/5/2008) considered; JBR v Refugee Appeals Tribunal [2007] IEHC 288, (Unrep, Peart J, 31/7/2007) approved - Illegal Immigrants (Trafficking) Act 2000 (No 29) - Leave to apply for judicial review refused (2008/940JR - Abbott J - 22/9/2010) [2010] IEHC 332
AHAAA [Kuwait] v Minister for Justice Equality and Law Reform
The applicant, who claims to be a Bidun (person without nationality) from Kuwait, seeks leave to apply for judicial review of the decision of the Refugee Appeals Tribunal (the "Tribunal") to affirm the recommendation of the Refugee Applications Commissioner that he should not be granted refugee status.
The impugned decision is dated the 27th March, 2008, but did not issue to the applicant until the 30th June, 2008, and then to the wrong address. The applicant finally received the Tribunal's decision on 10th July, 2008 although by that time the applicant's solicitor had already received the decision and discussed it with the applicant. The within proceedings issued on the 1st August, 2008.
The Court is satisfied that any delay arising has been adequately explained by the applicant in his affidavit. The primary reason for the delay is the time it took the Refugee Legal Service in Cork to obtain legal aid for the applicant through its Dublin office. The respondents raise no objection to time being extended and in the circumstances the Court considers there to be good and sufficient reason for extending time in accordance with s. 5 of the Illegal Immigrants (Trafficking) Act2000.
The applicant applied for asylum on the 6th October, 2006. He claims that he fears persecution in Kuwait because he is a Bidun. According to the applicant's narrative, he was born in Jahraa on the 15th June, 1977. As a Bidun, he and his family encountered a number of problems in Kuwait, including being denied access to education and employment. On the 15th July, 2006 he was detained in custody until the 10th September, 2006, on account of the fact that he could not prove his nationality when stopped by the police and asked for identification. During his detention, he was beaten and tortured. This included being burned with cigarettes and being administered electric shocks.
Upon his release, he arranged to leave Kuwait and retained the services of an agent. He travelled to Ireland by plane via Bahrain using a false passport, which was recovered by the agent upon arrival. He arrived in the State on the 6th October, 2006.
In a decision dated the 12th January, 2007, the Refugee Appeals Commissioner issued a negative recommendation in respect of the applicant. The Commissioner made a number of negative credibility findings. Of particular significance is the finding that the applicant had claimed to apply for Kuwaiti nationality in August, 2000. It was put to him at interview that country of origin information indicated that the application process was only active for one week, closing on the 27th June, 2000. In reply, the applicant said that he had not heard of the 27th June deadline. The Commissioner found that, in the absence of any country of origin information to the effect that the deadline had been extended, this seriously undermined the applicant's claim. The Commissioner's general conclusion was that the applicant had "little knowledge of the issues affecting Bidoon in Kuwait" and that "it is not credible that he is a Bidoon himself".
In support of his appeal to the Refugee Appeals Tribunal, a number of documents were submitted on the applicant's behalf. This included his birth certificate, an identity card, a letter from the Kuwaiti Ministry of the Interior rejecting his application for nationality, and a written pledge to the police which the applicant stated was a condition for his release from custody. He also submitted a medical report from his GP in Tralee wherein a number of his injuries were assessed, as well as country of origin information providing details of persecution faced by Bidun people in Kuwait. At hearing, a witness gave evidence that the applicant was a Bidun from Kuwait.
By decision dated the 27th March, 2008, the Tribunal dismissed the applicant's appeal. In essence, the applicant's claim fell on credibility grounds. A key finding in this regard was that the applicant had changed part of his evidence at the oral hearing. While the applicant had previously claimed that he applied for citizenship in August, 2000 and that he had not heard of the 27th June deadline for applications, under cross-examination he stated that in fact he made several attempts to apply in advance of the June deadline. He said that he attended at the relevant office every day between the 21st and 27th June but was not allowed inside because of the numbers applying. By way of explanation for this inconsistency in evidence, the applicant stated that he had said he was aware of the June deadline during the course of his s. 11 interview but the interviewer had failed to make a note of this. He also sought to attribute blame to...
To continue reading
Request your trial