A.Q. (Pakistan) v Minister for Justice and Equality

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: Mr. Justice Richard Humphreys
• Judgment Date: 19 April 2018
• Neutral Citation: [2018] IEHC 276
• Date: 19 April 2018
• Court: High Court
• Docket Number: [2011 No. 1052 J.R.]

[2018] IEHC 276

THE HIGH COURT

JUDICIAL REVIEW

Humphreys J.

[2011 No. 1052 J.R.]

BETWEEN

A.Q. (PAKISTAN)

APPLICANT

AND

THE MINISTER FOR JUSTICE AND EQUALITY, IRELAND

AND

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

RESPONDENTS

Asylum, Immigration & Nationality – Certiorari – Subsidiary protection – Deportation order – Credibility issue

Facts: The applicant sought an order of certiorari of the subsidiary protection refusal and the deportation order. The only challenge in the application was that the subsidiary protection decision was flawed. The applicant relied on the judgment of MacEochaidh J. in M.A. v. Minister for Justice and Equality [2015] IEHC 287. The applicant argued that he had a fear of prosecution and his deportation would lead to serious harm.

Mr. Justice Richard Humphreys dismissed the application. The Court followed the approach of Cooke J. in S.B.E. v. Minister for Justice and Equality [2010] IEHC 133, to the effect that where the credibility was rejected, the issue of internal relocation was irrelevant unless that primary finding was shown to be defective. The Court held that the state protection was available and the applicant was found not to be at risk of harm.

JUDGMENT of Mr. Justice Richard Humphreys delivered on the 19th day of April, 2018

1 The applicant applied for asylum in 2005. That application was rejected in February, 2006. A deportation order was made on 21st September, 2011 following a refusal of a subsidiary protection application on 15th July, 2011. The applicant was deported on 24th November, 2011.

2 I have heard helpful submissions from Mr. Ian Whelan B.L. for the applicant and Mr. Anthony Moore B.L. for the respondent.

Relief sought

3 The only substantive relief sought is certiorari of the subsidiary protection refusal and the deportation order. The only challenge to the latter order is that the subsidiary protection decision was flawed. The statement of grounds involves a modest 37 separate grounds. Mr. Whelan formally moved the legalistic points which I previously rejected in N.M. v. Minister for Justice and Equality [2018] IEHC 186 [2018] 2 JIC 2710 (Unreported, High Court, 27th February, 2018) and F.M. v. Minister for Justice and Equality (Unreported, High Court, 17th April, 2018), decisions that I follow here. That leaves two fact-specific complaints which I will now address.

Ground 3 – analysis of internal relocation

4 Internal relocation only arises as a critical issue if there is a risk of serious harm. This is dealt with by reg. 7 of the European Communities (Eligibility for Protection) Regulations 2006 ( S.I. No. 518 of 2006) which in turn reflects art. 8 of the qualification directive 2004/83/EC. The thrust of the decision is that the applicant is not at risk in Pakistan and that his account is not credible. There is passing reference to him being free to relocate at p. 21 of the decision. That reference is possibly not the most pertinent. It would be for the best...