I.H. and Others v Refugee Appeals Tribunal and Another
| Jurisdiction | Ireland |
| Judge | MR JUSTICE HEDIGAN |
| Judgment Date | 16 December 2008 |
| Neutral Citation | [2008] IEHC 409 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [2008] 12 JIC 1606 |
| Court | High Court |
| Date | 16 December 2008 |
[2008] IEHC 409
THE HIGH COURT
BETWEEN
AND
REFUGEE ACT 1996 S13(1)
REFUGEE ACT 1996 S11B(A)
REFUGEE ACT 1996 S11B(E)
ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS(TRAFFICKING) ACT 2000 S5(2)
BUJARI v MIN FOR JUSTICE 2003 UNREP FINLAY-GEOGHEGAN 7.5.2003 2003/7/1414 2003 IEHC 18
TRAORE v REFUGEE APPEALS TRIBUBNAL 2004 2 IR 607
P (V) & P (S) v REFUGEE APPEALS TRIBUNAL & ANOR UNREP FEENEY 7.12.2007 2007/50/10642 2007 IEHC 415
K (D) v REFUGEE APPEALS TRIBUNAL 2006 3 IR 368
IMMIGRATION
Asylum
Judicial review - Leave - Substantial grounds - Assessment of credibility - Tribunal refusal of refugee status - Lebanese nationals - Sunni Muslims - Country of origin information - Medical reports - Depressive anxiety and post traumatic stress disorder - Absence of negative credibility findings - Finding that fear of persecution not well-founded - Extension of time - Whether failure to assess relevant evidence - Whether failure to take account of explanation for failure to seek police protection - Whether failure to take account of evidence regarding period in hiding - Whether failure to take account of evidence regarding destruction of passports -Bujari v Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform [2003] IEHC 18 (Unrep, Finlay Geoghegan J, 7/05/03), T(M)(A) v Refugee Appeals Tribunal [2004] IEHC 219 [2004] 2 IR 607, P(V) v Refugee Appeals Tribunal [2007] IEHC 415 (Unrep, Feeney J, 7/12/2007) and K(D) v Refugee Appeals Tribunal [2006] IEHC 132, [2006] 3 IR 368 considered - Refugee Act 1996 (No 17), ss 11 and 13 - Illegal Immigrants (Trafficking) Act 2000 (No 29), s 5 - Leave refused (2006/1269JR - Hedigan J - 16/12/2008) [2008] IEHC 409
H(I) v Refugee Appeals Tribunal
Facts: The applicants consisting of husband and wife respectively and their sons sought leave to seek by way of judicial review an order of certiorari quashing the decision of the respondent refusing to grant them refugee status. The applicants were nationals of Lebanon and Sunni Muslims. They left Lebanon due to fear of attack from an organization, Hezbollah, which comprised Shia Muslims. Prior to fleeing Lebanon, the applicants went into hiding for 12 months at a friend’s house in Jounieh, which was a short distance from Beirut. The applicants submitted numerous Country of origin information (COI) documents supporting their applications and the first respondent also submitted medical reports diagnosing depressive anxiety, post traumatic stress disorder and paranoid ideation. The respondent did not make any negative credibility findings in relation to the applicants but accorded weight to the fact that the applicants did not seek State protection from the police in the Lebanon and further the applicants did not suffer any harm whilst in hiding in Jounieh. Furthermore, the respondent found that the applicants’ explanation for destroying their documentation was not logical. The applicants submitted that the respondent failed to assess relevant evidence in relation to their explanations for not approaching the police and evidence that they were living in fear and were in hiding in Jounieh.
Held by Hedigan J. in refusing to grant leave: That the respondent understood the broad thrust of the applicants’ claim, namely that they could not seek assistance from the police as the police was controlled by their antagonists and therefore would not protect them. The respondent’s decision stated that there was no evidence in the COI to suggest that protection might not reasonably have been forthcoming from the police to the applicants. There was no evidence that the respondent disregarded the applicants’ evidence regarding the nature of their stay in Jounieh and the respondent’s conclusion in that regard was neither irrational nor unreasonable. Finally, it was reasonable for the respondent to conclude that the applicants’ explanation for destroying identity documents was illogical.
Reporter: L.O’S
MR JUSTICE HEDIGAN, delivered on the 16th day of December, 2008
1. The applicants are seeking leave to apply for judicial review seeking primarily an order of certiorari of the decision of the Refugee Appeals Tribunal (RAT) to affirm the earlier recommendation of the Office of the Refugee Applications Commissioner (ORAC) that the applicants should not be declared refugees.
2. The applicants are nationals of Lebanon and Sunni Muslims. The first and second named applicants are husband and wife, respectively, while the third and fourth named applicants, who are minors, are their sons. The applicants applied for asylum upon arrival in the State on 24 th January, 2005. The account of events given in support of that application was as follows: while driving a van in Beirut in the course of his work on 5 th January, 2004, the first named applicant accidentally knocked down a pedestrian, paralysing him from the waist down. He was later informed that the pedestrian was a 70-year old Shia Muslim who had family members who were members of Hezbollah, which he describes as a terrorist organisation made up of Shia Muslims that operates both within and outside of the democratic process. His employer told him that members of Hezbollah were intent on harming him; some members of Hezbollah visited his father's home and demanded to know where he was. Before fleeing for Ireland, the family went into hiding for 12 months at a friend's house in Jounieh, a Christian area situated a short distance outside of Beirut.
3. The first and second applicants each completed an ORAC questionnaire; the children were included under their mother's application which was, in turn, based on that of her husband. The first named applicant attended for interviews in May and June, 2005; his wife attended for one interview in May, 2005. In April, 2006, individual reports were compiled in respect of each of them in compliance with section 13(1) of the Refugee Act 1996, as amended, wherein it was recommended that they should not be granted declarations of refugee status.
4. The first and second named applicants each submitted a Notice of Appeal to the RAT in May, 2006; the children were included in their mother's appeal as dependants. With his Notice of Appeal, the first named applicant enclosed nine country of origin information ("COI") documents relating to Hezbollah; eight of those nine COI documents were also enclosed with his wife's Notice of Appeal. An oral hearing took place in respect of each of the appeals on 27 th June, 2006. A further twenty COI documents were submitted to the RAT in July, 2006. Three medical reports compiled between June and August, 2006 by Dr J. Mulroy, Dr I. Moloney, and Dr A. Doherty, respectively, were submitted in support of the first named applicant's appeal in August, 2006; Drs Moloney and Doherty are Consultant Psychiatrists with the HSE. Each report records that the first named applicant shows symptoms of depressive anxiety and post traumatic stress disorder; the third report also records that he suffers a paranoid ideation with respect to the Irish judicial system.
5. The appeals of the first and second named applicants and their sons were considered together and rejected by decision dated 11 th September, 2006. The Tribunal Member accepted that the first named applicant has "a certain fear" of suffering a revenge-type killing at the hands of Hezbollah, and it is common case between the parties that the Tribunal Member did not make any negative credibility findings. He accorded weight, however, to the fact that the applicants did not seek protection from the police in Lebanon. He also noted that the applicants had not come to any harm during the time they spent in Jounieh, which he described as "a relatively short distance from where they originally lived", and on that basis he concluded that their fear was not "well-founded". He further found that the explanation given by the applicants for destroying their documentation was...
To continue reading
Request your trial