E.I. v The International Protection Appeals Tribunal

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: Mr Justice Max Barrett
• Judgment Date: 12 December 2019
• Neutral Citation: [2019] IEHC 897
• Docket Number: [2019 No. 273 JR]
• Court: High Court
• Date: 12 December 2019

[2019] IEHC 897

THE HIGH COURT

Max Barrett

[2019 No. 273 JR]

IN THE MATTER OF SECTION 5 OF THE ILLEGAL IMMIGRAMNTS (TRAFFICKING) ACT 2000 (AS AMENDED) AND IN THE MATTER OF THE INTERNATIONAL PROTECTION ACT 2015

BETWEEN

EI AND OI (A MINOR SUING BY HIS MOTHER AND NEXT FRIEND EI)

APPLICANTS

– AND –

THE INTERNATIONAL PROTECTION APPEALS TRIBUNAL, THE MINISTER FOR JUSTICE AND EQUALITY, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

AND

IRELAND

RESPONDENTS

International protection – Credibility – Country of origin information – Applicant seeking international protection – Whether the respondent, when rejecting the applicants’ application, failed to provide reasons that were cogent and related to the substantive basis of the claim

Facts: The first applicant, a national of Nigeria, sought international protection in Ireland by reference to certain claimed (and feared) violence allegedly suffered (or to be suffered) at the hands or instigation of her husband’s family in Nigeria. Two criticisms were made of the appeal decision of the first respondent, the International Protection Appeals Tribunal (IPAT): (1) the IPAT, when rejecting the applicants’ application, failed to provide reasons that were cogent and related to the substantive basis of the claim; and (2) the IPAT failed to consider particular Country of Origin Information (COI) provided.

Held by the High Court (Barrett J) that, when it came to the credibility assessment, it did not see any issue to present, by reference to the test as to adequacy of reasons identified by Mac Eochaidh J in RO v Minister for Justice and Equality [2012] IEHC 573, at para. 30. Having regard to the COI in question, the court did not see that any disadvantage was occasioned to the first applicant by the manner in which the IPAT proceeded.

Barrett J held that all the reliefs sought would be refused.

Reliefs refused.

JUDGMENT of Mr Justice Max Barrett delivered on 12th December, 2019.

1. Introduction

1 Ms I is a national of Nigeria who has sought international protection in Ireland by reference to certain claimed (and feared) violence allegedly suffered (or to be suffered) at the hands or instigation of her husband's family in Nigeria. The following chronological summary is of use in understanding the application at hand:

04.05.2017.	Ms I applies for international protection.
07.09.2017.	Letter of this date advises that application unsuccessful.
26.09.2017.	Notice of Appeal submitted to the International Protection Appeals Tribunal (“IPAT”).
18.07.2018.	IPAT hears oral appeal against the International Protection Office (“IPO”) decision.
11.12.2018.	IPAT letter raises some additional issues.
17.12.2018.	IPAT queries addressed by lawyers for Ms I.
28.03.2019. Letter of this date indicates that IPAT affirmed the IPO decision.

2 Two criticisms are made of the IPAT appeal decision, viz. that (1) the IPAT, when rejecting the applicants' application, failed to provide reasons that were cogent and related to the substantive basis of the claim, and (2) that the IPAT failed to consider particular Country of Origin Information (“COI”) provided.

2. The Credibility Point

3 As to the first point, this turned largely on the observations of Charleton J. in M.A.R.A. (Nigeria) (an infant) v....