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

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Court: High Court
• Judge: Mr. Justice Richard Humphreys
• Judgment Date: 25 April 2018
• Neutral Citation: [2018] IEHC 298
• Docket Number: [2012 No. 482 J.R.]
• Date: 25 April 2018

[2018] IEHC 298

THE HIGH COURT

JUDICIAL REVIEW

Humphreys J.

[2012 No. 482 J.R.]

BETWEEN

M.A.C. (PAKISTAN)

APPLICANT

AND

THE REFUGEE APPEALS TRIBUNAL, THE MINISTER FOR JUSTICE AND EQUALITY, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

AND

IRELAND

RESPONDENTS

Subsidiary protection – Deportation – Asylum application – Applicant seeking certiorari of a subsidiary protection refusal and a deportation order – Whether the respondent failed to rationally consider the Refugee Applications Commissioner’s view that state protection was not available

Facts: The applicant, born in Pakistan, applied for asylum, submitting what he said was evidence of persecution in the form of a first information report (FIR) and an arrest warrant. The Refugee Applications Commissioner rejected the application. He appealed to the first respondent, the Refugee Appeals Tribunal, and again was rejected. A subsidiary protection application was made, and on 18th April, 2012 was refused. A deportation order was made on 9th May, 2012. Proceedings were then issued and adjourned pending the outcome of M.M. v Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform [2018] IESC 10 and ultimately came before the High Court (Humphreys J) in October, 2017, when leave was granted. The primary relief sought was certiorari of the subsidiary protection refusal and the deportation order. The grounds pressed in relation to those two reliefs were: (i) the alleged total reliance on tribunal and failure to consider submissions and country material; and (ii) the allegation that in making the deportation order the second respondent, the Minister for Justice and Equality, failed to rationally consider the commissioner’s view that state protection was not available.

Held by Humphreys J that as pleaded the first complaint was a failure to consider the material and it seemed to Humphreys J that the material was considered; lack of narrative discussion does not equate to lack of consideration. Humphreys J held that, on the specific facts of the case, he should not conclude that the country situation was redundant and therefore there was failure to specifically address the favourable finding of the commissioner regarding state protection, applying by analogy Y.Y. v Minister for Justice and Equality [2017] IESC 61.

Humphreys J held that he would order that the proceedings other than in relation to the deportation order would be dismissed and that there would be an order of certiorari removing for the purpose of being quashed the deportation order and that part of the deportation order analysis as related to s. 5 of the Refugee Act 1996 and s. 4 of the Criminal Justice (United Nations Convention against Torture) Act 2000 together with a direction that the issue of refoulement be remitted to the Minister for reconsideration under s. 50 of the International Protection Act 2015.

Application granted in part.

JUDGMENT of Mr. Justice Richard Humphreys delivered on the 25th day of April, 2018

1 The applicant was born in Pakistan in 1967. He married in 1999 and has four children born between 2000 and 2007. He claims that his life was threatened as a Shia Muslim and that there was inadequate police protection available. He says he left his wife and family and fled Pakistan, arriving in Ireland on 6th March, 2008.

2 He applied for asylum, submitting what he said was evidence of persecution in the form of a first information report (‘FIR’) and an arrest warrant. The Refugee Applications Commissioner rejected the application, holding the applicant to be incredible, but took the view that if the applicant's case had been well-founded then it would appear that state protection would not be available to him. He appealed to the Refugee Appeals Tribunal and again was rejected primarily on credibility grounds. The state protection finding of the commissioner was not specifically disagreed with in the tribunal decision.

3 A subsidiary protection application was made, and on 18th April, 2012 was refused. A deportation order was made on 9th May, 2012. Proceedings were then issued and adjourned pending the outcome of the M.M. case (see M.M. v. Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform [2018] IESC 10 [2018] 1 I.L.R.M. 361) and...