M.L.T.T. [Cameroon] v Minister for Justice

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: MS JUSTICE M. CLARK,
• Judgment Date: 27 June 2012
• Neutral Citation: [2012] IEHC 568
• Court: High Court
• Date: 27 June 2012

[2012] IEHC 568

THE HIGH COURT

Record No. 1357 J.R./2008

T (MLT) [Cameroon] v Min for Justice & Refugee Appeals Tribunal (Linehan)

JUDICIAL REVIEW

Between:/

M. L. T. T. (CAMEROON)

APPLICANT

-AND-

THE MINISTER FOR JUSTICE, EQUALITY AND LAW REFORM AND THE REFUGEE APPEALS TRIBUNAL (DENIS LINEHAN)

RESPONDENTS

ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS (TRAFFICKING) ACT 2000 S5(2)(A)

REFUGEE ACT 1996 S13

DA SILVEIRA v REFUGEE APPEALS TRIBUNAL (HURLEY) & MIN FOR JUSTICE UNREP PEART 9.7.2004 2005/15/3102 2004 IEHC 436

MIN FOR IMMIGRATION & ETHNIC AFFAIRS v GUO & ANOR 191 CLR 559 1997 144 ALR 567 1997 HCA 22

MIN FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS v HAJI IBRAHIM 204 CLR 1 175 ALR 585 2000 HCA 55

NOUNE v SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPT 2001 INLR 526 2000 AER (D) 2163

PACIFICADOR v MIN OF CITIZENSHIP & IMMIGRATION 243 FTR 126 2003 FC 1462

M (MS), IN RE UNREP NZRSAA 1.3.1994 (REFUGEE APPEAL NO 300/92)

E (SB) v REFUGEE APPEALS TRIBUNAL & MIN FOR JUSTICE UNREP COOKE 25.2.2010 2010/17/4323 2010 IEHC 133

O (FO) [NIGERIA] v REFUGEE APPEALS TRIBUNAL & MIN FOR JUSTICE UNREP HOGAN 2.2.2012 2012 IEHC 46

IMAFU v MIN FOR JUSTICE & ORS UNREP PEART 9.12.2005 2005/31/6380 2005 IEHC 416

ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS (TRAFFICKING) ACT 2000 S5

HATHAWAY THE LAW OF REFUGEE STATUS 3ED 1991

MICHIGAN GUIDELINES ON THE INTERNATIONAL PROTECTION OF REFUGEES - THE MICHIGAN GUIDELINES ON WELL-FOUNDED FEAR 2004 PARA 4

CONVENTION RELATING TO THE STATUS OF REFUGEES 28.7.1951

MICHIGAN GUIDELINES ON THE INTERNATIONAL PROTECTION OF REFUGEES - THE MICHIGAN GUIDELINES ON WELL-FOUNDED FEAR 2004 PARA 12

R (I) v MIN FOR JUSTICE & REFUGEE APPEALS TRIBUNAL UNREP COOKE 24.7.2009 2009/47/11866 2009 IEHC 353

IMMIGRATION LAW

Judicial review

Leave - Asylum - Refugee status refused - Well founded fear of persecution - Forward looking test - Alleged failure to apply forward looking test when considering well founded fear of persecution - Whether tribunal member erred in law - Whether tribunal member failed to apply forward looking test - Da Silveira v Refugee Appeals Tribunal [2004] IEHC 436, (Unrep, Peart J, 9/7/2004) and IR v Refugee Appeals Tribunal [2009] IEHC 353, (Unrep, Cooke J, 24/7/2009) applied - Imafu v Minister for Justice [2005] IEHC 416, (Unrep, Peart J, 9/12/2005) distinguished - The Minister of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Guo [1997] 144 ALR 567; Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v. Haji Ibrahim [2000] HCA 55; Noune v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2000] EWCA Civ 306, [2000] All ER (D) 2163; Pacificador v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) [2003] FC 1462; RE M(MS) (Unrep, New Zealand RSAA, 1/3/1994); E(SB) v Refugee Appeals Tribunal [2010] IEHC 133, (Unrep, Cooke J, 25/2/2010) and O(FO) (Nigeria) v Refugee Appeals Tribunal [2012] IEHC 46, (Unrep, Hogan J, 2/2/2012) considered - Illegal Immigrants (Trafficking) Act 2000 (No 29), s 5 - Refugee Act 1996 (No 17), s 13 - Leave granted (2008/1357JR - Clark J - 27/6/2012) [2012] IEHC 568

T (MLT) (Cameroon) v Minister for Justice Equality and Law Reform

Facts: The applicant, a national of Cameroon, had applied for refugee status in the State. His application had been refused by the Refugee Appeals Tribunal, affirming the earlier decision of the Refugee Applications Commissioner. The Tribunal Member had found that there were some credibility issues, but had not relied on this to the same extent as the Commissioner. The applicant sought judicial review of the refusal of his claim, claiming the Tribunal member had failed to take a forward looking view of risk to the applicant if returned to Cameroon.

Held by Clark J, that the main issue in the claim was whether the Tribunal member should have considered any risk to the applicant on his return to Cameroon. As the Tribunal member had accepted some of the applicant”s claims, it could not be said that this was a case where the entire or core of the claim was disbelieved. As such, the Court held that the Tribunal member should have considered the matter of future risk upon return. The Court did not suggest that the Tribunal member should have agreed there was a risk, but should at least have given the matter the relevant weight. Imafu v Refugee Appeals Tribunal & Another [2005] IEHC 416 distinguished.

Leave for judicial review would therefore be granted.

1 By decision dated the 3 ^rd October 2008 the Refugee Appeals Tribunal (RAT) recommended that the applicant should not be granted refugee status. The applicant now seeks leave to apply for an order of certiorari quashing that decision together with ancillary reliefs. In this case the applicant's arguments centre upon the application of a forward-looking assessment of risk. The leave application was heard on 24 ^th April 2012. Mr John Stanley BL appeared for the applicant and Mr David Conlan Smyth BL appeared for the respondents.

2 These proceedings issued some six weeks after the expiry of the time limits set out in s. 5(2)(a) of the Illegal Immigrants (Trafficking) Act 2000. However having regard to the cogent explanation given by the applicant's solicitor the Court is satisfied that there is good and sufficient reason to grant an extension of time.

Background

3 The applicant's claim is that he is a national of Cameroon. He is now 35 and arrived in Ireland on 21 ^st December 2006 at age 29 and applied for asylum at the offices of the Refugee Applications Commissioner on the same date. His claim for asylum was based on the following narrative. While a student in Douala University in the 2004/2006 period he formed a student organisation called MDDEC of which he was president. He was involved in a demonstration protesting against poor student conditions towards the end of April 2005. The authorities suppressed the demonstration and several students were killed, others were arrested and female students were raped. He himself was arrested and detained in very poor conditions during which time he was frequently beaten and he believes that he was poisoned while in prison. He was released on an extracted promise to eschew student politics and signed a written agreement to that effect.

4 He missed sitting the next year's exams but otherwise he had no problems until November 2006 when he once again became involved in organising a student march to honour two students who had been shot dead at another university in Cameroon. Those students at the University of Buea had demonstrated against the addition of extra candidates to the list of those who had passed the entrance exam to enter the School of Medicine. The applicant organised a march to remember those dead students and to seek the unconditional release of other students who had been arrested. A university professor who was also the Dean warned the applicant that a new arrest by the authorities was imminent. At the same time he received several SMS messages with death threats. He felt forced to leave his neighbourhood and go into...