A (A)(Nigeria) v Min for Justice and Others

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: Mr. Justice Eagar
• Judgment Date: 27 March 2015
• Neutral Citation: [2015] IEHC 210
• Court: High Court
• Date: 27 March 2015

[2015] IEHC 210

THE HIGH COURT

[No. 769 J.R./2011]

A (A)(Nigeria) v Min for Justice & Ors

No Redaction Needed

BETWEEN

A.A. (NIGERIA)

APPLICANT

AND

THE MINISTER FOR JUSTICE, EQUALITY AND LAW REFORM, MICHELLE O'GORMAN (SITTING AS THE REFUGEE APPEALS TRIBUNAL), IRELAND AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

RESPONDENTS

Asylum – Certification of leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal – Illegal Immigrants Trafficking Act 2000.

Facts: Following a refusal of the application for an order of certiorari quashing the decision of the second named respondent earlier in the proceedings of the case, the applicant now sought an order under s. 5(3) of the Illegal Immigrants Trafficking Act 2000 for a certificate of leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal. The applicant contended that where an application had been refused on the basis of credibility of the story, objective assessment of a claim or a consultation of the Country of Origin Information was warranted and therefore it raised a point of law of exceptional public importance.

Mr. Justice Eagar held that the application for an order under s. 5(3) of the Illegal Immigrants Trafficking Act 2000 for a certificate of leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal would be refused. The Court held that the case lacked a point of law and it would not be of exceptional public importance. The Court reiterated that the application to the Tribunal was totally unsustainable. The Court further reiterated that the applicant's contention for the Tribunal Member to look in to the Country of Origin Information lacked credibility.

1 JUDGMENT of Mr. Justice Eagar delivered on the 27th day of March 2015

2 1. On the 4 ^th February 2015 this Court gave judgment ("the judgment") on an application for a judicial review by the above named Applicant in which this Court refused the Applicant's application for an order of certiorari quashing the decision of the second named Respondent affirming the decision of the Refugee Appeals Tribunal that the Applicant not be declared a refugee and seeking an order remitting the appeal of the Applicant for a determination de novo by a separate member of the Refugee Appeals Tribunal. The Applicant now applies under s. 5 (3) (a) of the Illegal Immigrants Trafficking Act 2000 for a certificate of leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal on the basis that the judgment "involves a point of law of exceptional public importance" and that "it is desirable in the public interest" that such an appeal be taken.

3 2. As the court pointed out in the judgment, the contested decision of the Tribunal turned entirely on the issue of the credibility of the personal history which the Applicant had recounted as the basis of his claim to a fear of persecution if returned to Nigeria.

4 3. Whilst the Applicant does not set out particular specified questions or questions to be asked by the Court of Appeal the submissions prepared on behalf of the Applicant indicate the following:

5 a) The apparent finding that there is no need to objectively assess a claim or consult Country of Origin Information where a refusal is based upon the findings of lack of credibility in respect of the Applicant's story, was in breach of the mandated minimum standards.

6 b) The second issue was the failure to grant a declaration on the Applicant's application for same to the effect that S.I. 518 of 2006 fails to properly transpose the provisions of the EU Directive 2004/83/EC.

7 4. In the alternative the Applicant requests that if the court was unwilling to permit an appeal to the Court of Appeal by granting a certificate it should then make a preliminary reference under Article 267 of the Treaty for the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). These applications are opposed by counsel on behalf of the Respondents.

8 5. The criteria to be applied by this Court in ruling on the application for a certificate under s. 5 (3) (a) are not in dispute. Following from the decisions of Cooke J. in I. R. v. Minister for Justice Equality and Law Reform & Refugee Appeals Tribunal [2009] IEHC 510, and the decision of Clarke J. in Arklow Holidays v. An Bord Pleanala [2007] 4 I.R. 112. I say that the following principles appear to apply:-

9 1) The case must raise a point of law of exceptional public importance.

10 2) The area of law involved must be uncertain such that it is in the common good that uncertainty be resolved for the benefit of future cases.

11 3) That it is desirable in the public interest that...