Ngangtchang v The Refugee Appeals Tribunal & Anor, [2005] IEHC 441 (2005)

Docket Number:2004 1203JR
Judge:O'Leary J. / O''Leary J.

THE HIGH COURT JUDICIAL REVIEW[2004 No. 1203 JR]BETWEENCHIMENE WANDJI NGANGTCHANG APPLICANTANDTHE REFUGEE APPEALS TRIBUNAL ANDTHE MINISTER FOR JUSTICE EQUALITY AND LAW REFORM RESPONDENTSANDHUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSIONATTORNEY GENERALJUDGMENT delivered by The Honourable Mr. Justice O'Leary on the 21st day of December, 2005.The applicant seeks leave to apply by way of judicial review for the following orders:(a) An Order of Certiorari quashing the decision of the first named respondent dated the 30th day of November, 2004, in respect of the applicant's application for refugee status.(b) A declaration that the first named respondent erred in law and/or in fact in its conduct of the applicant's appeal hearing and its determination thereof dated the 30th day of November, 2004.(c) An injunction by way of application for Judicial Review restraining the second named respondent from acting on foot of the decision of the first named respondent dated the 30th day of November, 2004, pending the outcome of these proceedings.(d) A declaration, pursuant to section 5(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights Act, 2003, that the rule of law that currently governs the scope of judicial review in respect of cases involving fundamental human rights, is incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights.(e) An order allowing for an extension of time within which to bring an application for judicial review, pursuant to section 5 (2) (a) of the Illegal Immigrants (Trafficking Act), 2000.(f) Such further or other order as this Honourable Court shall seem meet.(g) An order providing for costs.The relief is sought on the following grounds:(i) The tribunal member erred in law and acted in breach of section 16 (8) of the Refugee Act, 1996, and in breach of the applicant's right to fair procedures, in failing to provide the applicant and her legal representatives with an indication in writing of the source of all information that came to her notice during the appeal. The tribunal member refers to "the sources consulted, including country reports, Amnesty International Reports, Canadian IRB, and a general Internet search" but fails to state the source of all information that came to her notice.(ii) The tribunal member erred in law in confining her analysis of the applicant's claim to one where the applicant was regarded solely as an employee of an SCNC member, in that such analysis fails to consider the concept of imputed political opinion. The applicant's evidence was that the police accused her of trying to protect her employer, and told her that as a member of the Bamileke tribe she wanted to divide Cameroon. The tribunal member appears to have accepted the veracity of this part of the applicant's claim and erred in law in not finding that this brings the applicant within section 2 of the Refugee Act, 1996, either by way of imputed political opinion race, ethnicity or membership of a particular social group.(iii) Further to (ii), the tribunal member erred in law in finding that the absence of reference to the targeting of people who work for SCNC members in the UK Home Office Report of January, 2004, was such as to undermine the applicant's claim. The applicant was not regarded by the authorities as solely as an employee of...

To continue reading