A.M.C.(Mozambique} v The Refugee Appeals Tribunal No.2

JurisdictionIreland
CourtHigh Court
JudgeMr. Justice Richard Humphreys
Judgment Date09 July 2018
Neutral Citation[2018] IEHC 431
Date09 July 2018
Docket Number[2016 No. 898 J.R.]

[2018] IEHC 431

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

(No. 2)

Immigration and asylum – Leave to appeal – Jurisprudence – Applicant seeking leave to appeal – Whether there was a conflict in jurisprudence

Facts: In A.M.C. (Mozambique) v Refugee Appeals Tribunal (No. 1) [2018] IEHC 133, Humphreys J refused certiorari of a decision of the International Protection Appeals Tribunal refusing an asylum claim made by the applicant. The applicant applied to the High Court submitting a large number of new authorities, and new points that were not originally made, in support of an application for leave to appeal the original decision. The applicant's proposed first question was an alleged conflict in jurisprudence between R.O. v Minister for Justice and Equality [2012] IEHC 573 and I.E. v Minister for Justice and Equality [2016] IEHC 85. The second proposed question was whether the principles outlined by Faherty J in M.M. v Refugee Appeals Tribunal [2015] IEHC 158 were correct. The third question was what probative value was to be afforded to medico-legal reports where credibility was in issue. Reliance was placed in the fourth question on the judgment of Clark J in S.R. v Refugee Appeals Tribunal [2013] IEHC 26. The fifth question asked what probative value was to be afforded to unauthenticated documentary evidence.

Held by Humphreys J that, having noted that the applicant accepted that R.O. was not mentioned in the applicant's written submissions for the substantive hearing, that concession was fatal to giving leave to appeal under that heading. Humphreys J noted that M.M. was not mentioned in the applicant's substantive submissions and held that it would be procedurally improper for it to be introduced at the leave to appeal stage. Humphreys J held that the answer to the third question depended on the individual case and that only fact-specific answers could be given; it was thus not an appropriate matter for leave to appeal. Humphreys J held that, insofar as S.R. was concerned, that issue had been dealt with by the Court of Appeal in A.O. v Refugee Appeals Tribunal [2017] IECA 51. Humphreys J held that the fifth question was not susceptible to a simple answer and could only be dealt with on a fact-specific basis; thus it was not a question suitable for leave to appeal.

Humphreys J held that the application for leave to appeal should be dismissed.

Application refused.

JUDGMENT of Mr. Justice Richard Humphreys delivered on the 9th day of July, 2018
1

In A.M.C. (Mozambique) v. Refugee Appeals Tribunal (No. 1) [2018] IEHC 133, I refused certiorari of a decision of the International Protection Appeals Tribunal refusing an asylum claim made by the applicant. The applicant now submits a large number of new authorities, and new points that were not originally made, in support of an application for leave to appeal the original decision.

2

As noted in the substantive decision, the applicant's written submissions relied on the High Court decision in A.O. v. Refugee Appeals Tribunal [2015] IEHC 252 (Unreported, Barr J., 21st April, 2015) without referring either to the fact that it had subsequently been overturned by the Court of Appeal ( A.O. v. Refugee Appeals Tribunal [2017] IECA 51 (Unreported, Court of Appeal, 27th February, 2017)) or to my decision in T.T. (Zimbabwe) v. Refugee Appeals Tribunal [2017] IEHC 750 (Unreported, High Court, 31st October, 2017) discussing the latter judgment. The applicant thus must be credited with achieving a new definition of legal chutzpah, in asserting on the one hand that he is entitled to leave to appeal due to alleged confusion in the law, while on the other having attempted to create such confusion by making submissions which failed to refer to relevant authorities in the first place.

3

I have considered the case law in relation to leave to appeal as set out in Glancré Teoranta v. An Bord Pleanála [2006] IEHC 250 (Unreported, MacMenamin J., 13th November, 2006), Arklow Holidays v. An Bord Pleanála [2008] IEHC 2, per Clarke J. (as he then was), S.A. v. Minister for Justice and Equality (No. 2) [2016] IEHC 646 [2016] 11 JIC 1404 (Unreported, High Court, 14th November, 2016) para. 2, Y.Y. v. Minister for Justice and Equality (No. 2) [2017] IEHC 185 [2017] 3 JIC 2405 (Unreported, High Court, 24th March, 2017) at para. 72. and I.R. v. Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform [2009] IEHC 510 [2015] 4 I.R. 14.

4

I have received helpful submissions from Mr. Mark de Blacam S.C. (with Mr. Eamonn Dornan B.L.) for the applicant and from Mr. Dermot Manning B.L. for the respondent. I should note that Mr. de Blacam did not appear in the original substantive proceedings.

An important context is the demolition of the applicant's credibility
5

An important context for assessing what Mr. de Blacam says are interesting and significant legal points is that, on the facts of this particular case, the applicant's credibility is in tatters for a whole series of reasons set out in the substantive judgment and summarised in the thirteen reasons at para. 4, including a series of matters where the applicant either told repeated lies, gave vague, contradictory or implausible explanations, was unable to account for matters or gave explanations that were contrary to known country material.

6

The applicant raises legalistic points regarding a document produced in the form of an alleged death certificate for his father, but he has the insuperable difficulty that the document was in effect insufficient to overcome the fundamental problems with his...

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 cases
  • M.Z.(Pakistan) v The International Protection Appeals Tribunal
    • Ireland
    • High Court
    • 15 February 2019
    ...IEHC 274 [2018] 4 JIC 1706 (Unreported, High Court, 17th April, 2018) (iv). A.M.C. (Mozambique) v. Refugee Appeals Tribunal (No. 2) [2018] IEHC 431 [2018] 7 JIC 0902 (Unreported, High Court, 9th July, 2018) (v). R.S. (Ukraine) v. International Protection Appeals Tribunal (No. 1) [2018] ......
  • M.S.R v The International Protection Appeals Tribunal
    • Ireland
    • Supreme Court
    • 12 June 2019
    ...and the High Court (in TT (Zimbabwe) v Refugee Appeals Tribunal [2017] IEHC 750 and AMC (Mozambique) v Refugee Appeals Tribunal (No.2) [2018] IEHC 431) have created a tension with the standard of ‘close and rigorous scrutiny’ established by the ECtHR in Singh v Belgium (Application Backgrou......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT