I.G. (Albania) v The Chief International Protection Officer

JurisdictionIreland
CourtHigh Court
JudgeMr. Justice Richard Humphreys
Judgment Date17 September 2018
Neutral Citation[2018] IEHC 509
Docket Number[2018 No. 541 J.R.]
Date17 September 2018
BETWEEN
I.G. (ALBANIA)
APPLICANT
AND
THE CHIEF INTERNATIONAL PROTECTION OFFICER

AND

THE MINISTER FOR JUSTICE AND EQUALITY
RESPONDENTS
AND
THE INTERNATIONAL PROTECTION APPEALS TRIBUNAL
NOTICE PARTY

[2018] IEHC 509

Humphreys J.

[2018 No. 541 J.R.]

THE HIGH COURT

JUDICIAL REVIEW

Immigration and asylum – Subsidiary protection – Certiorari – Applicant seeking a stay on the hearing before the International Protection Appeals Tribunal pending an appeal to the Court of Appeal against the High Court’s refusal of a stay pending the determination of the test cases – Whether the High Court’s findings were incorrect

Facts: The applicant arrived in the State on 19th September, 2015, and applied for asylum two days later. That application was rejected. She then appealed to the Refugee Appeals Tribunal. On 31st December, 2016, on the commencement of the International Protection Act 2015, the application was required to be remitted to the International Protection Office (IPO) for determination of the subsidiary protection aspect of the claim. On 6th June, 2018, that application was rejected by the IPO. On 26th June, 2018, the applicant appealed the subsidiary protection and asylum decisions to the International Protection Appeals Tribunal (IPAT). On 4th July, 2018, the applicant sought certiorari of the IPO decision. On 10th September, 2018 the applicant sought a stay on the IPAT hearing pending the determination of test cases dealing with the technical point as to whether the IPO is entitled to use contractors in assessing protection claims. After an inter partes hearing, Humphreys J dismissed the stay application: N.A. v Chief International Protection Officer [2018] IEHC 499 (Unreported, High Court, 10th September, 2018). One week later, the applicant came back seeking a very similar relief, namely a stay on the hearing before the IPAT pending an appeal to the Court of Appeal against Humphreys J’s refusal of a stay pending the determination of the test cases.

Held by Humphreys J that the reasons that he set out in the judgment of 10th September, 2018 in N.A. all applied to this application. He noted that the applicant’s submissions did not really offer any meaningful reason why those findings did not apply; rather she sought to contend that those findings were incorrect. That seemed to Humphreys J to be a questionable procedure in the context of an application brought by the same applicant.

Humphreys J held that he would refuse a stay on the IPAT hearing.

Application refused.

JUDGMENT of Mr. Justice Richard Humphreys delivered on the 17th day of September, 2018
1

The applicant arrived in the State on 19th September, 2015, and applied for asylum two days later. That application was rejected. She then appealed to the Refugee Appeals Tribunal. On 31st December, 2016, on the commencement of the International Protection Act 2015, the application was required to be remitted to the International Protection Office for determination of the subsidiary protection aspect of the claim. On 6th June, 2018, that application was rejected by the IPO. On 26th June, 2018, the applicant appealed the subsidiary protection and asylum decisions to the International Protection Appeals Tribunal, which is due to hear the appeal on 24th September, 2018. On 4th July, 2018, the present proceedings were filed, in which the primary relief sought is certiorari of the IPO decision. On 10th September, 2018 the applicant sought a stay on the IPAT hearing pending the determination of test cases dealing with the technical point as to whether the IPO are entitled to use contractors in assessing protection claims. After an inter partes hearing, I dismissed the stay application: N.A. v. Chief International Protection Officer [2018] IEHC 499 (Unreported, High Court, 10th September,...

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Get Started for Free

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex
2 cases
  • R.H. (Albania) v The Chief International Protection Officer
    • Ireland
    • High Court
    • 8 October 2018
    ...judicial reviews had also been sought challenging those first instance decisions. In I.G. v. Chief International Protection Officer [2018] IEHC 509 [2018] 9 JIC 1702 (Unreported, High Court, 17th September, 2018) I refused a stay in a similar case where further arguments had been advanced. ......
  • R S v Chief International Protection Officer
    • Ireland
    • Supreme Court
    • 26 June 2019
    ...High Court, Humphreys J., 10 September 2018) (‘the N.A. case’) & I.G.(Albania) v. The Chief International Protection Officer [2018] IEHC 509 (Unreported, High Court, Humphreys J., 17 September 2018)), granted a stay on the processing of the appeal in the test case ( the N.A. case), but the ......