E.P.A v The Refugee Appeals Tribunal

JurisdictionIreland
JudgeMr. Justice Colm Mac Eochaidh
Judgment Date27 February 2013
Neutral Citation[2013] IEHC 85
CourtHigh Court
Date27 February 2013

[2013] IEHC 85

THE HIGH COURT

[No. 1365 J.R./2008]
A (EP) v Refugee Appeals Tribunal
JUDICIAL REVIEW

BETWEEN

E.P.A
APPLICANT

AND

THE REFUGEE APPEALS TRIBUNAL
RESPONDENT

O (T)(A MINOR) v REFUGEE APPEALS TRIBUNAL & ORS UNREP MAC EOCHAIDH 21.12.2012 2012 IEHC 576

S (DVT) v MIN FOR JUSTICE & REFUGEE APPEALS TRIBUNAL 2008 3 IR 476

J (H) & T (H) v SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT 2010 UKSC 31

EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES (ELIGIBILITY FOR PROTECTION) REGS SI 518/2006 REG 9(2)(B)

K (J)(UGANDA) v MIN FOR JUSTICE UNREP HOGAN 13.12.2011 2011/29/7822 2011 IEHC 473

Asylum & immigration – Refusal of claim for asylum – Sexuality of applicant – Refuge Appeal Tribunal refusing to believe applicant”s account of his sexuality

Facts: The applicant, a national of Ghana, had applied for asylum on the grounds of his sexuality, contending he was gay. The applicant was married with children, with his family still residing in Ghana. The respondent Tribunal had refused to accept the applicant”s account of his sexuality, and as doubts regarding the credibility were apparent had refused his claim. The applicant now sought leave to apply for judicial review.

Held by Mac Eochaidh J, that there appeared to be a number of flaws in the respondent”s decision making. Evidence that corroborated the applicant”s account was not referred to, and clear and reasoned findings on the issue of his sexuality were not provided. The approach taken by the respondent was not in accordance with the approach recommended in recent English case law, and leave to appeal would be granted. HJ (Iran) v Secretary of State for the Home Department; HT (Cameroon) v Same [2010] UKSC 31; [2010] 2 WLR 386; [2011] 1 AC 596 applied.

1

This is an application for leave to seek judicial review in respect of a decision of the Refugee Appeals Tribunal.

2

The applicant is a national of Ghana who came to Ireland in March 2008 and claimed asylum on the basis of persecution related to being gay. The applicant is married and has children and his family remain in Ghana.

3

It is argued that the decision of the Tribunal is unlawful because it makes no finding on the applicant's sexual orientation and because negative credibility findings were made unlawfully.

4. The Credibility Issue
5

The applicant claimed that he was involved in a gay rights organisation which was assisting the Gay and Lesbian Association of Ghana in organising an international conference in Ghana in 2006. The Tribunal Member notes that country of origin information refers to a denial by the Gay and Lesbian Association of Ghana that any such conference was ever planned in 2006. The Tribunal Member says:

a a. "The applicant's claim to have been involved in organising this conference is not capable of belief, and this tends to raise some doubts about the veracity of his testimony as a whole."

6

The country of origin information contained details about the international conference referred to by the applicant. A document prepared by the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labour dated 6 th March 2007, contains the following reference:-

"There was widespread public outcry during the year against an international lesbian and gay conference scheduled to take place in Accra in September. Strong public opposition to the event and to homosexuals more generally was reflected in vehement letters to the editor, radio call-in shows, comments posted on the Internet, and in public speeches given by government officials. The government banned the conference after local religious leaders united to protest the planned event."

7

It is regrettable that the Tribunal Member did not refer to this evidence which seems to corroborate the version of events given by the applicant. Where country of origin information contains conflicting details, the decision maker is not entitled to rely on one version of the evidence without saying why the version of opposite effect is rejected. (See T O. v. Refugee Appeals Tribunal [2012] IEHC 576 and D.V.T.S. v. Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform [2007] IEHC 305)

8

Substantial grounds have been advanced in support of claims related to unlawful credibility findings.

9

The Tribunal Member refers to the fact that he believes the applicant is a happily married man,-not language indicative of an acceptance that the applicant is gay. It seems to me that the Tribunal Member does not accept that the applicant is gay. A clear and reasoned finding on this central issue was required of the Tribunal and a failure by the Tribunal Member to decide this critical part of the applicant's claim in express terms establishes a substantial ground that the decision in unlawful and leave to pursue this complaint is granted.

10

A complaint is also raised in relation to the suggestion by the Tribunal Member that internal relocation is available to...

To continue reading

Request your trial
21 cases
  • E.O. (Nigeria) v Refugee Appeals Tribunal
    • Ireland
    • High Court
    • June 23, 2015
    ...decision of M. v. Refugee Appeals Tribunal (Unreported, High Court, MacEochaidh J, 20th June 2013) and E.P.A. v. Refugee Appeals Tribunal [2013] IEHC 85. Further, the applicant complained that the tribunal failed to adhere to extreme care when determining a documents-only appeal, and that t......
  • P. D. v Minister for Justice and Law Reform and Others
    • Ireland
    • High Court
    • February 20, 2015
    ...court have addressed complaints relating to inadequate consideration of an applicant's core claim. In E.P.A. v. Refugee Appeals Tribunal [2013] IEHC 85 the court said: 70 2 "9. The Tribunal Member refers to the fact that he believes the applicant is a happily married man - not language indi......
  • J. v D. v v Refugee Appeals Tribunal and Others
    • Ireland
    • High Court
    • January 27, 2015
    ...As I find the claim that the house was destroyed to be a central issue, in the words of MacEochaidh J in EPA v. Refugee Appeals Tribunal [2013] IEHC 85:- "A clear and reasoned finding on this central issue was required of the Tribunal and a failure by the Tribunal Member to decide this crit......
  • H.R.A v Minister for Justice Equality & Law Reform
    • Ireland
    • High Court
    • August 15, 2016
    ...that a core claim should be decided (see E.P.A. v. The Refugee Appeals Tribunal, (Unreported, Mac Eochaidh J., 27th February 2013) [2013] IEHC 85), where the court said, as to the core claim: 'A clear and reasoned finding on this central issue was required of the Tribunal and a failure by ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT