E.R v Refugee Appeals Tribunal

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: Mr. Justice Mac Eochaidh
• Judgment Date: 19 April 2013
• Neutral Citation: [2013] IEHC 165
• Court: High Court
• Docket Number: [2009 No. 450 J.R.]
• Date: 19 April 2013

BETWEEN

E. R. (A MINOR SUING BY HER SISTER AND NEXT FRIEND T.R.)

APPLICANT

AND

THE REFUGEE APPEALS TRIBUNAL (MICHELLE O'GORMAN) AND THE MINISTER FOR JUSTICE, EQUALITY AND LAW REFORM

RESPONDENT

AND

BETWEEN

T.R.

APPLICANT

AND

THE REFUGEE APPEALS TRIBUNAL (MICHELLE O'GORMAN) AND THE MINISTER FOR JUSTICE, EQUALITY AND LAW REFORM

RESPONDENT

[2013] IEHC 165

[2009 No. 450 J.R.]

[2009 No. 358 J.R.]

THE HIGH COURT

Refugee law – Judicial review – Immigration and asylum – Fair hearing – Fear of persecution –– Country of origin information – Whether failure by Tribunal to give adequate reasons for decision – Refugee Act, 1996 – Illegal Immigrants (Trafficking) Act, 2000.

Facts The applicants had arrived in the State from the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) and had made applications for asylum which had been rejected. The applicants initiated judicial review proceedings contending that the Refugee Appeals Tribunal had failed to give adequate reasons for its decision and in particular had failed to address the threat of violence to them ,which they had raised, as women which currently pertained in the DRC in its decision. The case had been made that the position of women in the DRC was precarious with an endemic problem of rape and a failure by State authorities to address this problem. It was contended that this claim was either not dealt with at all or not dealt with adequately.

Held by Mac Eochaidh J in granting leave to seek judicial review: It was well established law [ Meadows v. Minister for Justice [2010] IESC 3] that decisions and the reasons for them must be clearly stated. It was incumbent upon a Tribunal Member to give a clear and reasoned decision on each claim advanced by an applicant for refugee status. If two grounds of entitlement to refugee status were raised, two clear and reasoned decisions were required. This did not happen in this instance. Substantial grounds had been made out to support a grant of leave to seek judicial review and the court would grant leave in both cases.

Mr. Justice Mac Eochaidh

JUDGMENT of Mr. Justice Colm Mac Eochaidh delivered on the 19th day of April2013

1 1. These proceedings comprise applications for leave to seek judicial review in related cases, heard together.

2 2. The applicants in these cases are sisters who left the Democratic Republic of Congo in 1999. At first instance, they claimed to have suffered persecution arising from their father's support for rebel forces. In particular, the girls claimed they suffered beatings and rape when State forces came in search of their father. They fled their home country, spending some time in Tanzania and Kenya before eventually making their way to Ireland in April 2006.

3 3. The first instance decision maker recommended rejection of their asylum applications and on appeal the Refugee Appeals Tribunal (the "RAT") found that there had been such significant political changes in the Democratic Republic of Congo that the applicants could not be said to have a well founded fear of persecution and that the...