A.M.C. (Mozambique) v The Refugee Appeals Tribunal

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: Mr. Justice Richard Humphreys
• Judgment Date: 08 March 2018
• Neutral Citation: [2018] IEHC 133
• Docket Number: [2016 No. 898 J.R.]
• Court: High Court
• Date: 08 March 2018

[2018] IEHC 133

THE HIGH COURT

JUDICIAL REVIEW

Humphreys J.

[2016 No. 898 J.R.]

BETWEEN

A.M.C. (MOZAMBIQUE)

APPLICANT

AND

THE REFUGEE APPEALS TRIBUNAL, THE MINISTER FOR JUSTICE AND EQUALITY, IRELAND

AND

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

RESPONDENTS

Asylum, Immigration & Nationality – The Refugee Act 1996 – Refusal of refugee status – Appeal – Rejection of appeal – Adverse credibility findings.

Facts: The applicant sought judicial review of the decision of the first named respondent, which had refused to grant asylum to the applicant. The applicant alleged that the first respondent had failed to consider the medico-legal documents submitted by the applicant in support of his alleged injury. The applicant contended that the decision of the first respondent was irrational.

Mr. Justice Richard Humphreys dismissed the applicant's application. The Court held that the first respondent had made adverse credibility findings against the applicant and considered the medical reports. The Court found that the decision of the first respondent was rational as he had rejected the appeal of the applicant on the basis of lack of credibility.

JUDGMENT of Mr. Justice Richard Humphreys delivered on the 8th day of March, 2018

1 The applicant arrived in the State from Mozambique on 16th February, 2014 travelling on a false South African passport. In February, 2014 prior to applying for asylum, he left Ireland and travelled to the UK, claiming to be visiting a relative in Wales. In the s. 11 interview under the Refugee Act 1996 he lied that he had not been in the UK. He applied for a PPS number using a false name, according to the s. 11 interview. He did not seek asylum until 11th April, 2014 explaining this by saying that 'the guy who brought us here was waiting for the rest of the money and I didn't know about asylum'. That is possibly strange language for a genuine asylum seeker as opposed to, for example, a person whose asylum claim is part of a manufactured story purchased by a particular applicant as part of having availed of the people-trafficking industry. He claimed to have been kidnapped by an insurgent group called RENAMO, held in captivity and raped. He claimed to have had his jaw damaged with a weapon. An MRI scan on 4th July, 2014 showed no significant bony abnormality. He claimed the group killed his father on 26th June, 2012. On 18th October, 2014 the asylum claim was rejected by the Refugee Applications Commissioner. He appealed that refusal to the tribunal, and an oral hearing took place on 5th September, 2016, at which Mr. Peter O'Sullivan B.L. appeared for the applicant. The appeal was rejected by the tribunal (Ms. Olive Brennan) by decision dated 27th October, 2016.

2 A statement of grounds was filed on 25th October, 2016 and leave to challenge the tribunal decision granted on 6th February, 2017. A statement of opposition was filed on 5th October, 2017.

3 I have received submissions from Mr. Eamonn Dornan B.L. for the applicant and Mr. Dermot Manning B.L. for the respondents.

Ground 1 - failure to give proper probative weight to medico-legal documents.

4 It is clear that the applicant's credibility was left in tatters after his various interactions with the asylum process.

(i). He failed to apply for asylum on arrival in the State (see para. 5.15 of the decision), a statutory factor under s. 11B(d) of the 1996 Act.

(ii). His explanation essentially was that his people-trafficker was waiting for payment (see para. 5.15).

(iii). He lied repeatedly that he did not go to the U.K. prior to seeking asylum. (see s.11 interview notes).

(iv). He failed to apply for asylum in the U.K. either.

(v). He claimed that his jaw was damaged but the MRI scan says otherwise (see para. 5.13).

(vi). His claim was seriously lacking in specifics or details (see paras. 5.10 and 5.22.)

(vii). He gave contradictory information about his capacity to move to the village of Maputo (see para. 5.12).

(viii). It was found that he could have reported matters to the authorities (see para. 5.11).

(ix). He made the implausible claim that his captors gave him a gun (see para. 5.10).

(x). He was unable to account for a number of details in his story (see paras. 5.6 and 5.10).

(xi). He suggested that villagers were both being raped and being asked to carry heavy goods by the rebels, which was found to be somewhat contradictory (see para. 5.6).

(xii). He was unable to account for either how he obtained his father's death certificate or where the information contained in that certificate came from (see para. 5.6).

(xiii). In the opinion of the tribunal his account was contrary to country of origin information.

5 Insofar as the decision amounted to a challenge to the applicant's credibility, the specific findings in that regard are not impugned in these proceedings. Mr. Dornan submits that there is a lack of clear adverse findings by the tribunal, but it is clear that the tribunal rejected the applicant's credibility overall having regard to ' all issues to which I have referred ... taken cumulatively' (para. 5.22).

6 It is not necessary for a decision-maker to tediously recite after each hammer blow to the applicant's credibility that she is making a specific finding in relation to each and every sub-matter, outlining the precise contours of such sub-finding. Peart J. said in G.T. v. Minister for Justice Equality and Law Reform [2007] IEHC 287 (Unreported, High Court, 27th July, 2007) that the court should read the decision as a whole rather than parse and analyse it word for word. Similarly, a decision-maker is entitled to take the evidence more broadly and as a whole, and is not under an invariable obligation to parse and analyse each individual micro-element of it piece by piece. Even the High Court does not invariably do that when evaluating the credibility of a particular witness.

7 As regards the specific complaints made by the applicant, it should be noted that the tribunal holds that there is no Convention nexus in relation to the applicant's story. That was a permissible ground for the rejection of the claim irrespective of any other finding.

8 Next, as regards the allegation that the medico-legal material was not considered, it is clear that the tribunal did consider all of the reports and correspondence submitted. The report of Dr. Patrick Davitt of 8th September, 2016 notes that the applicant did not seem depressed or anxious and was unwilling to discuss exactly how often he had been raped. The letter from SPIRASI states that it is a ' file review'. It noted that two consultations had occurred, that the applicant had difficulties with alcohol, had attended the Mater Hospital, had two further psychotherapy sessions and did not return. It then concluded, quite unscientifically, that ' the client had been significantly...