MG v Refugee Appeals Tribunal

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: Ms. Justice O'Regan
• Judgment Date: 21 February 2017
• Neutral Citation: [2017] IEHC 94
• Docket Number: [2016 No. 984 J.R.]
• Court: High Court
• Date: 21 February 2017

IN THE MATTER OF SECTION 5 OF THE ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS (TRAFFICKING) ACT, 2000 (AS AMENDED)

BETWEEN

M.G.

APPLICANT

AND

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

AND

IRELAND

RESPONDENTS

[2017] IEHC 94

O'Regan J.

[2016 No. 984 J.R.]

THE HIGH COURT

JUDICIAL REVIEW

Asylum, Immigration & Nationality – S. 5 of the Illegal Immigrants (Trafficking) Act, 2000 – Non-consideration of country of origin information – Application of standard of proof

Facts: The applicant sought leave to apply for an order of certiorari for quashing the decision of the first named respondent for refusing the applicant's application for grant of refugee status. The applicant contended that the first named respondent had applied the incorrect standard of proof, which was the balance of probabilities test.

Ms. Justice O'Regan refused to grant leave to the applicant. The Court found that the first named respondent had applied the correct test that was applied to the past events, which was the balance of probabilities test. The Court observed that there was no infirmity or irregularity in the decision rendered by the first named respondent and adequate reasons had been afforded to the applicant for the rejection of the applicant's credibility.

JUDGMENT of Ms. Justice O'Regan delivered on the 21st day of February, 2017

1 The applicant herein is seeking leave to apply for certiorari by way of ex parte docket of 19th December, 2016 to quash the decision of the first named respondent bearing date 21st November, 2016 wherein the first named respondent refused the applicant's application for the grant of refugee status.

2 Substantial grounds are required in order to secure leave pursuant to s. 5 of the 2000 Act as amended.

3 The grounds upon which leave is sought are set out in para. E of the statement of grounds of 9th December, 2016.

4 Submissions of the 16th February, 2017 have been tendered. Para. 9 thereof quotes from para. 7.5 of the judgment by Clarke J. in E.D. v. Refugee Appeals Tribunal [2016] IESC 77 to support all grounds. At the hearing of the leave application it was emphasised that country of origin information was not considered as to the possibility of re-trafficking in Albania and violence against women. One of the reports referred to dealt with domestic violence (not relevant in this matter) and the other, on the issue of re-trafficking stated:-

‘All that can be concluded is that there is evidence that some victims of trafficking have been re-trafficked and that of those re-trafficked some are forcibly re-trafficked against their will.’

Grounds 1 and 2

5 The first ground indentified is that the Tribunal Member erred in applying the incorrect standard of proof, that of the balance of probabilities rather than reasonable degree of likelihood in assessing the applicant's credibility. Ground 2 is a similar complaint as to the standard of proof being ‘the balance of probabilities’ relative to past events.

6 With respect to these two grounds I delivered judgment in O.N. v. Refugee Appeals Tribunal & Ors [2017] IEHC 13 on 17th January, 2017 when I found that the correct standard of proof to be applied to past events was the balance of probabilities coupled, in appropriate circumstances, with the benefit of the doubt. The appropriate circumstances to attract the benefit of the doubt would be where the overall credibility of the applicant is accepted.

Ground 3

7 In Ground 3 it is asserted that the Tribunal failed to assess the credibility of the applicant in the light of the applicant's individual and contextual circumstances.

However, having considered the 12-page report...