R (AM) v Refugee Appeals Tribunal and Others

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: Mr. Justice Brian McGovern
• Judgment Date: 25 April 2008
• Neutral Citation: [2008] IEHC 108
• Docket Number: No. 722 J.R./2006
• Court: High Court
• Date: 25 April 2008

[2008] IEHC 108

THE HIGH COURT

No. 722 J.R./2006

R (AM) v Refugee Appeals Tribunal & Ors

JUDICIAL REVIEW

IN THE MATTER OF

THE REFUGEE ACT 1996 (AS AMENDED)

IN THE MATTER OF

THE IMMIGRATION ACT, 1999

AND IN THE MATTER OF

THE ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS (TRAFFICKING) ACT 2000

AND IN THE MATTER OF

THE EUROPEAN CONVENTION AND HUMAN RIGHTS ACT 2003,

SECTION 3 (1)

BETWEEEN

A.M.R.

APPLICANT

AND

REFUGEE APPEALS TRIBUNAL MINISTER FOR JUSTICE, EQUALITY AND LAW REFORM ATTORNEY GENERAL IRELAND

RESPONDENTS

IMMIGRATION ACT 1999

EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS ACT 2003 S3(1)

REFUGEE ACT 1996 S2

ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS (TRAFFICKING) ACT 2000 S5(2)

BALOGUN v REFUGEE APPEALS TRIBUNAL & ORS UNREP CHARLETON 29.1.2008 EX TEMPORE

EDOBAR v REFUGEE APPEALS TRIBUNAL UNREP SUPREME 2000 EX TEMPORE

REFUGEE ACT 1996 S11(b)

R (JB) v REFUGEE APPEALS TRIBUNAL (DOURADO) UNREP PEART 31.7.2007 2007 IEHC 288

IMAFU v MIN FOR JUSTICE & ORS UNREP PEART 9.12.2005 2005/31/6380 2005 IEHC 416

Abstract:

Immigration - asylum - Fair procedures - Assessment of credibility - Use of country of origin information in assessment of well foundedness of fear of persecution - Whether rational - Whether in conformance with fair procedures - Delay - Whether delay in making decision invalidates decision - Judicial review - Certiorari - Whether substantial grounds for contending that decision invalid and should be quashed - Whether leave to institute judicial review should be granted - Illegal Immigrants (Trafficking) Act 2000, s 5.

the applicant sought leave to quash the decision of the respondent. He contended, inter alia, that the process by which the respondent assessed the applicant’s credibility was deficient and that the fact that the decision had been given after fifteen weeks from the date of hearing invalidated it.

Held by Mr Justice McGovern in refusing to grant the applicant leave to institute judicial review that substantial grounds meant grounds which were not frivolous or trivial. The courts were reluctant to interfere with a finding of credibility other than in cases where the process by which the assessment of credibility had been made was legally flawed and the respondent was entitled to take into account the matters which it did in reaching its conclusion on the applicant’s credibility. That decisions in asylum cases should be given as expeditiously as was consistent with fairness and natural justice but there was no rigid rule providing timeframes within which asylum decisions should be given.

Reporter: P.C.

Mr. Justice Brian McGovern

1 This is an application for leave to apply for judicial review in respect of a decision of the Refugee Appeals Tribunal to refuse the appeal of the applicant. The applicant seeks leave to apply for judicial review by way or order ofcertiorari quashing the decision of the first named respondent and for other ancillary relief as set out in the notice of motion issued in this matter.

2 The applicant is a married man from Iran and he was born in 1975. He claims to be of Kurdish ethnic origin. The evidence before the Refugee Applications Commissioner and the Refugee Appeals Tribunal was to the effect that he was associated with members of the Komala party which was a Communist group which opposes the suppression of human rights in Iran. He says he was involved in the organisation for approximately a year and was not a full member but was waiting to join the organisation. He was storing leaflets for the organisation in his house and he claimed that on 6^th February, 2005, his house was raided by the Iranian authorities and that they were looking for him. He was contacted by his wife by mobile phone and he fled to hide with his uncle. He claims that his activities were disclosed to the authorities by two other members of the group who were detained and tortured although there is no evidence of this. There is country of origin information to show that high ranking members of Kurdish organisations have been persecuted by the Iranian authorities but there was evidence from which both the Refugee Applications Commissioner and the Refugee Appeals Tribunal were entitled to conclude that the applicant was a low level member of the organisation and that he may not actually have been a member of it at the time but was awaiting confirmation that he had been admitted. In my view, nothing turns on this. He said that his uncle assisted him in fleeing from Iran and he travelled by horse and car and truck to Istanbul. His uncle arranged for his journey out of Iran to Ireland and paid $5,000 for him. He spent eight days in Turkey when he fled the country.

3 The Tribunal found against the applicant on the grounds of credibility and on the grounds that he has not demonstrated to a reasonable degree of likelihood that he is a refugee within the meaning of s. 2 of the Refugee Act1996 (as amended).

4 The applicant was out of time in bringing the application, but I am satisfied that there is good and sufficient reason for extending the period within which the application can be made on the basis that any delay arose due to the fact that the applicant was not informed by the Refugee Legal Service until 24^th May, 2006, that proceedings would not be instituted on his behalf and then he had to wait for one week for an appointment with the solicitor. It seems to me that he was reasonably diligent in pursuing his application for leave to appeal.

5 Section 5(2) of the Illegal Immigrants (Trafficking) Act2000, provides that the application for leave to challenge the decision...