MS v The International Protection Appeals Tribunal

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: Ms Justice Tara Burns
• Judgment Date: 15 December 2021
• Neutral Citation: [2021] IEHC 30
• Date: 15 December 2021
• Docket Number: RECORD NO.: 2019/961JR
• Court: High Court

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

BETWEEN:-

MS

APPLICANT

-AND-

THE INTERNATIONAL PROTECTION APPEALS TRIBUNAL AND THE MINISTER FOR JUSTICE

RESPONDENTS

[2021] IEHC 30

Tara Burns

RECORD NO.: 2019/961JR

THE HIGH COURT

JUDICIAL REVIEW

Judicial review – International protection – Rationality – Applicant seeking an order of certiorari quashing the decision of the first respondent – Whether the first respondent reached a determination which was irrational and unreasonable in the circumstances

Facts: The applicant, an Albanian national, arrived in the State on 3 April 2017 and thereupon applied for international protection. The basis for his application was that his father owed a gambling debt and the applicant was being threatened by a criminal gang to pay it back. His application was refused by an International Protection Officer on 16 April 2019. He appealed to the first respondent, the International Protection Appeals Tribunal, on 10 May 2019 who affirmed the decision of the International Protection Officer on the 5 November 2019, having conducted an oral hearing in the matter. The applicant applied to the High Court seeking an order of certiorari quashing the decision of the first respondent on the grounds that the first respondent erred (i) by incorrectly determining the case on a single issue, namely that the applicant did not know how much the debt was; or in the alternative (ii) if the first respondent was correct to determine the case on this single issue, it reached a determination which was irrational and unreasonable in the circumstances.

Held by Burns J that the applicant’s claim was not determined on a single issue. Burns J found that there were two issues which were of particular significance for the first respondent: the fact that the applicant did not know the amount of the debt and the fact that he said a specified sum had not been requested from him. Burns J found that the first respondent also considered a number of other aspects of the applicant’s claim. Burns J noted that it considered the issues of: how the applicant’s father could afford to send him to college; why was the family not pursued for the debt when the family could afford to send the applicant to college; why was the applicant only pursued for the debt after all the years which had passed since it had been incurred; how come the family remaining in Albania were safe from these demands; and the connection between the person demanding money and the police force. Burns J noted that, with respect of each of these issues, bar the corruption issue, the first respondent indicated that it could not fully assess the significance of each without knowledge of the amount of the debt and the amount demanded. Burns J held that this was a conclusion which was entirely open for the first respondent to make. With regard to the first respondent referring to the applicant’s education, Burns J held that this was a relevant consideration to take account of having regard the international protection claim being based on a demand for an unspecified sum of money. Burns J found that the first respondent did consider the documentation submitted by the applicant in relation to his father’s illness and the fact that he was divorced but determined that those documents were not probative of his international claim, which was a determination open to the first respondent. With respect to the corruption allegation made by the Applicant, Burns J held that the first respondent’s decision on that assertion, based on the evidence before it, was also open to it to make.

Burns J refused the applicant the relief sought and made an order for the respondents’ costs against the applicant to be adjudicated upon in default of agreement.

Relief refused.

JUDGMENT of Ms Justice Tara Burns delivered on the 15th December 2020.

General

1 The Applicant is an Albanian national who arrived in the State on 3 April 2017 and thereupon applied for International Protection. The basis for his application was that his father owed a gambling debt and the Applicant was being threatened by a criminal gang to pay it back. His application was refused by an International Protection Officer on 16 April 2019. He appealed to the First Respondent on 10 May 2019 who affirmed the decision of the International Protection Officer on the 5 November 2019, having conducted an oral hearing in the matter.

The Protection Claim

2 In evidence before the First Respondent, the Applicant alleged that his father had borrowed money in 2000 to 2002 for gambling. He said that his father started to receive threats regarding this debt arising from which his father had tried to hang himself and had divorced from the...