S v International Protection Appeals Tribunal

JurisdictionIreland
JudgeMr Justice Max Barrett
Judgment Date19 December 2019
Neutral Citation[2019] IEHC 868
Date19 December 2019
Docket Number[2019 No. 331 JR]
CourtHigh Court

[2019] IEHC 868

THE HIGH COURT

Max Barrett

[2019 No. 331 JR]

IN THE MATTER OF SECTION 5 OF THE ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS (TRAFFICKING) ACT 2000 (AS AMENDED) AND IN THE MATTER OF THE INTERNATIONAL PROTECTION ACT 2015

BETWEEN
S
APPLICANT
- AND -
THE INTERNATIONAL PROTECTION APPEALS TRIBUNAL, THE MINISTER FOR JUSTICE AND EQUALITY, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

AND

IRELAND
RESPONDENTS

Asylum & immigration – Allegation of rape – International protection – Refusal of application – Application for judicial review

Facts: The applicant alleged she had been raped by a senior politician in her country of origin and had given birth to a stillborn baby as a result. She arrived in the State and claimed international protection. This was refused and her appeal to the IPAT dismissed on credibility grounds. She now applied for leave to seek judicial review.

Held by the Court, that the application would be dismissed. The Court had considered the five grounds of appeal and was satisfied that the IPAT had not erred in the manner alleged by the applicant.

JUDGMENT of Mr Justice Max Barrett delivered on 19th December, 2019.
1

Ms S claims that she was raped by a man who is now a senior politician in her country of origin, that she gave birth to a stillborn child following the rape and that the alleged rapist arranged for the child's remains to be taken from her. However, according to the International Protection Appeals Tribunal (“IPAT”) decision of 20.05.2019 (the “Impugned Decision”), “the only material elements of the Applicant's claim which are credible on the balance of probabilities” are that Ms S is of a particular age and religious denomination, that she arrived in Ireland on a particular date on a particular permission, and that she claimed asylum here in December 2015.

2

The statement of grounds alleges that there are five deficiencies in the Impugned Decision; one (Ground 3) does not arise for consideration as the relevant legislation is agreed not to apply:

“1. In determining the appeal on the basis of findings made in respect of credibility, internal relocation and state protection, the Tribunal had no regard to the mutually exclusive nature of the said findings….

2. [T] he credibility findings which were based on conjecture and/or related to aspects of the narrative given by the Applicant and did not go to the core of the Applicant's claim relating to the rape by a very prominent and powerful individual….

4. The manner in which the Tribunal had regard to the country of origin (COI) information was contrary to the [European Asylum Support Office (“EASO”)] and [European Country of Origin Information (“ECOI”)] standards of assessment….

5 [T] he IPAT simply stated that the Appellant could ‘relocate to [Stated Place] … without any indication of whether it derived its jurisdiction from section 32(1)(b) of the International Protection Act 2015, [which] insofar as it introduces the concept of ‘settle’ when considering the availability of internal...

To continue reading

Request your trial
1 cases
  • NL v International Protection Appeals Tribunal and Minister for Justice
    • Ireland
    • High Court
    • 25 June 2021
    ...and does not reflect the test enunciated by the English Courts. See ON v. RAT [2017] IEHC 13; MAMA v. RAT [2011] 2 IR 729; SS v. IPAT [2019] IEHC 868. In this jurisdiction, the First Respondent is obliged to assess the past facts asserted by an applicant and must accept a past fact as estab......

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