A (M.I) v The Refugee Appeals Tribunal and Another

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: MR JUSTICE HEDIGAN
• Judgment Date: 29 October 2008
• Neutral Citation: [2008] IEHC 336
• Court: High Court
• Date: 29 October 2008

[2008] IEHC 336

THE HIGH COURT

[1600 JR/2007]

A (M I) v Refugee Appeals Tribunal & Min for Justice

BETWEEN

M. I. A.

APPLICANT

AND

THE REFUGEE APPEALS TRIBUNAL AND THE MINISTER FOR JUSTICE, EQUALITY AND LAW REFORM

RESPONDENTS

ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS (TRAFFICKING) ACT 2000 S5

S (DVT) v MIN FOR JUSTICE & ORS UNREP HIGH EDWARDS 4.7.2007 2007/54/11621

IMMIGRATION

Asylum

Country of origin information - Whether adequate State protection available - Conflict of evidence - Alleged error of fact - Evidence given by guard at oral hearing - Error of attribution of evidence to guard - Alleged failure to consider country of origin information in manner which accorded with requirements of natural and constitutional justice -- Whether error of fact rendered decision unreasonable or irrational - T v Refugee Appeals Tribunal [2007] IEHC 287 (Unrep, Peart J, 27/7/2007) considered; S v Minister for Justice [2007] IEHC 305 (Unrep, Edwards J, 4/7/2007) distinguished; TS v Minister for Justice [2007] IEHC 451 (Unrep, Edwards J, 30/11/2007) approved - Illegal Immigrants (Trafficking) Act 2000 (No 29), s 5 - Leave refused (2007/1600JR - Hedigan J - 29/10/2008) - [2008] IEHC 336

A(MI) v Refugee Appeals Tribunal

Facts: The applicant sought leave to apply for judicial review of the decision of the first named applicant affirming the earlier recommendation of the Office of the Refugee Applications Commissioner (ORAC) that she should not be declared a refugee. The applicant for refugee status was based on a fear of violence in the applicant’s home village and her fear of a shrine in Lagos. Adverse credibility findings were made against the applicant both by ORAC and the respondent. Evidence was given at the hearing before the respondent by a Detective Inspector of the Garda National Immigration Bureau and by a Social Worker. The applicant for leave was based on two grounds: firstly that there was an error of fact as to the evidence given by the Garda at the oral hearing and secondly, there was a failure to consider country of origin information in a manner which accorded with the requirements of natural and constitutional justice.

Held by Hedigan J. in refusing the application for leave: That there was an error in the evidence given by the Garda but the information relied on by the respondent was available from the country of origin information that was before the Tribunal. Accordingly, taking a holistic approach to the decision, the information on which the respondent drew his conclusions was properly before him and it was open to him to draw the conclusions that he did from that information, irrespective of the error of attribution. The country of origin information did not show that there was a conflict of any significance as to the availability of state protection, rather, different opinions were expressed as to the quality and duration of protection. Consequently, it was open to the respondent to reach the conclusion he did based on the information before him, and he did so with due regard to natural and constitutional justice.

Reporter: L.O’S.

1 The within proceedings were instituted through the applicant's next friend, a Social Worker, when the applicant was a minor. She has since turned 18 years of age and an application was therefore made on her behalf at the outset of the hearing, seeking leave for the applicant to proceed in her own name. That application having been granted, she now proceeds in her own name. She is seeking leave to apply for judicial review of the decision of the Refugee Appeals Tribunal (RAT) to affirm the earlier recommendation of the Office of the Refugee Applications Commissioner (ORAC) that she should not be declared a refugee.

Factual Background

2 The applicant is a national of Nigeria. Until 2006, she lived with her parents and five siblings in a village some three hours from Lagos. She says that she left her village at the age of 16 owing to violence between her village and another village on foot of a land dispute. She says the elders of the other village threatened to kill the children of her village as a result of the land dispute.

3 The applicant travelled to Lagos, where she was homeless for a month and survived by living under a bridge and begging for food. The applicant says that when begging, she met a woman (S) who brought her home and cared for her. Through S, the applicant met another girl, who brought the applicant to meet a woman (J) who had just returned from abroad, J said she would help the applicant to find work in a shop outside of Nigeria. A fortnight later, J brought the applicant to a shrine in a village in Lagos and forced her to engage in a ritual and swear not to run away. Thereafter, J's boyfriend brought the applicant to the airport, from where she travelled alone to Ireland, via Frankfurt, London and Belfast.

4 The applicant says that she was met in Belfast by J and brought to a house in Sligo where she met two other Nigerian girls. En route to Sligo, J told the applicant she would have to work as a prostitute in order to repay the sum of €60, 000 and she threatened to kill the applicant if she escaped. Three days later, a Garda raid was carried out on the house in Sligo. The applicant was detained in Mountjoy for three days and was then placed in HSE care in Chester House.

5 CCTV footage shows that some time later, three unidentified Nigerian women came looking for the applicant and the other Nigerian girls who had been in the house in Sligo. The applicant remained in her room but the other girl who was in Chester House disappeared at that time and the third girl, who had been placed elsewhere, also disappeared and was later found in a brothel in the U.K.

Procedural Background

6 An application for asylum was made on behalf of the applicant on 22 ^nd November, 2006. In her ORAC application, the applicant focussed on her fear of violence in her home village and her fear of the shrine in Lagos. In the section 13 report compiled by the authorised ORAC officer, several negative credibility findings were drawn and it was recommended that she should not be declared a refugee.

7 From the ORAC decision, the RLS appealed on behalf of the applicant to the RAT. In support of her appeal, the RLS forwarded a number of redacted RAT decisions and an amount of country of origin information, including portions of a Report on human rights issues in Nigeria compiled by a joint British-Danish fact-finding mission to Abuja and Lagos in 2004, and a US DS Country Report on Nigeria for the year 2005. An RAT oral hearing took place on 2 ^nd August, 2007. It was stressed that the applicant was focussing on the second strand of her claim, i.e. that she fears...