I.A. (Pakistan) v Minister for Justice and Equality

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: Mr. Justice Richard Humphreys
• Judgment Date: 20 April 2018
• Neutral Citation: [2018] IEHC 273
• Docket Number: [2012 473 J.R.]
• Court: High Court
• Date: 20 April 2018

[2018] IEHC 273

THE HIGH COURT

JUDICIAL REVIEW

Humphreys J.

[2012 473 J.R.]

BETWEEN

I.A. (PAKISTAN)

AND

N.I.

AND

A.I. (AN INFANT SUING BY HER FATHER AND NEXT FRIEND I.A.)

APPLICANTS

AND

THE MINISTER FOR JUSTICE AND EQUALITY, IRELAND

AND

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

RESPONDENTS

Asylum, Immigration & Nationality – Certiorari – Reg. 5(2) of the European Communities (Eligibility for Protection) Regulations 2006 – Subsidiary protection

Facts: In the present application, the primary relief sought was an order of certiorari for the subsidiary protection refusal. The applicants criticised the findings of the first named respondent under reg. 5(2) of the European Communities (Eligibility for Protection) Regulations 2006 (S.I. No. 518 of 2006) as to whether the applicants had already been subjected to serious harm.

Mr. Justice Richard Humphreys granted an order of certiorari and thus, quashed the subsidiary protection refusals. The Court found that the first named respondent's conclusion was erroneous. The Court noted that the first named respondent had made an error when it concluded that reg. 5(2) of the 2006 Regulations was not applicable to the present case. The Court opined that the first respondent should have stated that the said regulation was applicable and that all the country of information was considered and the application was rejected nonetheless.

JUDGMENT of Mr. Justice Richard Humphreys delivered on the 20th day of April, 2018

1 The applicants sought asylum on 19th January, 2007. That application was rejected on 15th August, 2007. They appealed to the Refugee Appeals Tribunal which refused the appeals on 8th July, 2009. They applied for subsidiary protection on 9th September, 2009 which was refused on 23rd April, 2012. Deportation orders were made, although they have been later revoked. I have heard helpful submissions from Mr. Paul O'Shea B.L. (with Ms. Sunniva McDonagh S.C.) for the applicants and Mr. Alexander Caffrey B.L. for the respondents.

Relief sought

2 The primary relief sought is certiorari of the subsidiary protection refusal. Certiorari of the deportation orders had also been sought but that no longer arises since the orders have been revoked.

3 Mr. O'Shea formally moves the legalistic points which I have rejected in N.M. v. Minister for Justice and Equality [2018] IEHC 186 [2018] 2 JIC 2710 (Unreported, High Court, 27th February, 2018) and F.M. v. Minister for Justice and Equality (Unreported, High Court, 17th April, 2018) and says that the remaining fact-specific grounds are grounds 3, 4, 7, 10, 11 and 13, which in turn resolve under three headings, which I will deal with as follows.

Delay in processing the application

4 In this case, there was a delay of two and half years in processing the subsidiary protection application. That was certainly unfortunate and should not be repeated but it does not render the decision invalid. In Case C-277/11 M.M. v. Minister for Justice and Equality, Advocate General Bot delivered an opinion on 26th April, 2012, which stated at paras. 113 and 114 that a delay of 21 months in a subsidiary protection decision seemed to him to be ' manifestly unreasonable'. That is agreed with by White J. in D.M. (a minor) v. Chief Appeals Officer [2017] IEHC 52 (Unreported, High Court, 16th February, 2017) at para. 30. I also agree, but it does not mean that the refusal is invalid as a result.

Failure to hold that the applicant had already been subject to serious harm under...