S (S S) v Min for Justice & Refugee Appeals Tribunal

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: Mr. Justice Cooke
• Judgment Date: 14 July 2009
• Neutral Citation: [2009] IEHC 329
• Court: High Court
• Docket Number: [No. 1540 J.R./2007]
• Date: 14 July 2009

[2009] IEHC 329

THE HIGH COURT

[No. 1540 J.R./2007]

S (S S) v Min for Justice & Refugee Appeals Tribunal

BETWEEN/

S.S.S.

APPLICANT

AND

THE MINISTER FOR JUSTICE, EQUALITY AND LAW REFORM AND REFUGEE APPEALS TRIBUNAL

RESPONDENTS

REFUGEE ACT 1996 S11B(C)

IMMIGRATION

Asylum

Credibility - Minor - Negative credibility findings - Whether findings unreasonable - Whether failure to have regard to relevant considerations -Whether tribunal exaggerated significance of description of clan as religious group - Whether tribunal expected unreasonable degree of knowledge from teenage girl with no formal education - Legality of process of assessment - Whether decision inconsistent with decision in prior case involving clan member - Imafu v Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform [2005] IEHC 416 (Unrep, Peart J, 9/12/2005) considered - Refugee Act 1996 (No 17), s 11 - Application refused (2007/1540JR - Cooke J - 14/7/2009) [2009] IEHC 329

S (SS) v Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform

Facts The applicant had arrived in the State and had applied for refugee status. The applicant had been refused refugee status by the Refugee Appeals Tribunal and had brought judicial review proceedings in respect of the decision. Leave to seek judicial review had been granted in respect of the Tribunal's findings regarding the credibility of the applicant. The Tribunal had found that the applicant did not have a detailed knowledge of Islam despite being from a very religious clan in Somalia and it was argued that the findings of the Tribunal were unreasonable and irrational.

Held by Mr. Justice Cooke in declining to quash the decision of the Tribunal. The Court was only concerned with the legality of the process and once the Court finds itself querying whether a decision maker had been too harsh, the Court was in danger of substituting its own view. It was a clear case whereby the limited jurisdiction of the Court in relation to the issue of credibility could not permit it to overturn a conclusion which had been adequately based upon findings of the Tribunal.

Reporter: R.F.

JUDGMENT of

Mr. Justice Cooke

delivered on the 14th day of July, 2009

1 By a judgment of 3^rd February, 2009 and an order of 10^th February, 2009, Birmingham J. granted leave for the bringing of the present application to seek an order of certiorari with a view to quashing a decision of 21^st August, 2007 made by the Refugee Appeals Tribunal rejecting an appeal by the applicant against a report of the Refugee Applications Commissioner of 28^th February, 2007, in which it was recommended that the applicant be not declared to be a refugee.

2 The single ground upon which leave was permitted was as follows:

"The second named respondent failed to have regard to relevant considerations and/or made unreasonable findings. The second named respondent found that the applicant did not have a detailed knowledge of Islam and in particular of the Koran at her interview and for this reason it was not credible that she was a member of the Ashraf clan which is reported to be a very religious clan. The second named respondent failed to consider that the applicant had made no claim that she herself was particularly religious and/or failed to consider that the applicant's explanation that she had no formal education at all and that her religious education was interrupted by the fighting in Somalia, in the premise it the Tribunal member placed over reliance upon and over interpreted limited country of origin information about the Ashraf clan and failed to consider the particular circumstances of the applicant as described in her evidence."

3 The applicant arrived in the State in 2006 as an unaccompanied minor who claimed to have fled Somalia. She claims she was a member of the minority Ashraf clan, which has suffered badly at the hands of militias in the conflicts which have ravaged that country in recent years. Her family have been repeatedly attacked by militias and several times forced to flee to flee their home. Two of her brothers have been killed and she herself has been abducted by militias and mistreated on two occasions.

4 It does not appear to have been doubted by either the authorised officer of the Commissioner or the Tribunal member in this case that the account she gives of the suffering of her family and her own mistreatment at the hands of the militias would constitute a basis for a fear of persecution for a Convention reason if it was found to be credible. The treatment of the Ashraf clan she describes is consistent with country of origin information. The report of the Commissioner of 28^th February 2007, however, did not find her credible, largely on the basis of her answers to questions about the area in which she claimed to live, her knowledge of the Islamic faith and of the Koran and of her account of her travel from Somalia to Ireland.

5 The Tribunal member came to the same conclusion and the single ground of the present...