T.U. v International Protection Appeals Tribunal and Another
| Jurisdiction | Ireland |
| Judge | Mr Justice Barr |
| Judgment Date | 12 February 2024 |
| Neutral Citation | [2024] IEHC 73 |
| Court | High Court |
| Docket Number | [Record No. 2023/275JR] |
[2024] IEHC 73
[Record No. 2023/275JR]
THE HIGH COURT
JUDGMENT of Mr Justice Barr delivered on the 12 th day of February 2024
. The applicant seeks certiorari of a decision of the first respondent (hereinafter ‘the Tribunal’) dated 21 February 2023, in which he was refused international protection, on the following grounds:
(i) that when the applicant showed the Tribunal the marks and scarring to his body, which he alleged had been caused by beatings at the hands of state actors when he attended various demonstrations, the Tribunal should have adjourned the hearing, in pursuance of its duty to cooperate with the applicant's application, to enable the applicant to provide a medical report dealing with these injuries and whether they were consistent with having been caused by beatings, as alleged by the applicant;
(ii) that the Tribunal member had failed to adequately consider the country of origin information (hereinafter ‘COI’), when reaching the determination that the applicant did not have a well-founded fear of persecution, or serious harm if returned to his country of origin.
. The applicant was born in Q2 of 1980. He had been employed as an accountant in his country of origin. He arrived in the State on 5 March 2022, at which time he claimed international protection.
. The applicant's narrative is that he was at all material times a member of the Indigenous People of Biafra (hereinafter ‘IPOB’) political group. That group was a prescribed organisation in Nigeria.
. The applicant's narrative was that he had attended many IPOB demonstrations in the years 2018, 2019, 2020 and 2021. At that time he was living in Lagos. He stated that he had been beaten by the state's security force (DSS) and other state actors, while attending at these demonstrations.
. In February 2021, the applicant stated that he moved to stay at his father's property, which was in a different part of the country. While there, he hosted some meetings at the property for IPOB.
. On 6 January 2022, the applicant stated that two friends of his, who were also IPOB members, came to the property to have a meeting with him. After some time, he left the two friends at the property, while he went into the city. On his return, he was told by neighbours, that while he was away, the police/DSS had arrived at the compound. He was told that the DSS had been looking for him, as the neighbours had seen them looking around the compound and calling out his name. He was told that one of his friends had been shot in the leg during an altercation with the DSS. Both men had been taken into custody. The applicant stated that he saw bloodstains on the ground at the property.
. The applicant stated that due to his involvement with IPOB, he feared for his safety. He stated that the event on 6 January 2022, brought matters to a head. He was very frightened because the DSS were looking for him. He decided to flee the country. He stayed in Ghana for a number of weeks and then travelled to Ireland by ship, arriving in the State on 5 March 2022.
. As part of his application, the applicant submitted two affidavits sworn on 22 July 2022, from his brother and sister, who averred that on 30 June 2022, the DSS had come back to his father's compound looking for the applicant.
. The applicant's case was that having been a member of IPOB; and having been involved in demonstrations organised by them over a number of years, at which he had experienced violence at the hands of state actors; and having regard to the fact that the DSS were looking for him on 6 January 2022 and again on 30 June 2022; and having regard to the COI, which stated that members of IPOB were likely to experience persecution or harm at the hands of state organisations; he had a well-founded fear that if returned to Nigeria he would experience persecution and/or serious harm.
. In the course of the application process, the applicant was interviewed in the ordinary way. While he gave detailed information in relation to the demonstrations that he had attended and had stated that people attending such demonstrations had been regularly beaten by members of the security forces, he had not explicitly stated that he had been beaten on any such occasions.
. However, in his written submissions before the IPAT hearing, it had been submitted on his behalf that he had “experienced violence” when attending such demonstrations. At the hearing before the Tribunal on 18 November 2022, the applicant stated that he had scars and/or marks on his legs, left shoulder and hands, which had been sustained as a result of attacks on him in 2019, 2020 and 2021, by the security forces, when he had been attending rallies and demonstrations organised by IPOB. He stated that he had not gone to hospital for treatment of his wounds. He had treated the wounds himself, according to traditional practices. He stated that he had not mentioned the scars in his interviews with immigration officials, due to the fact that his cousin, with whom he was particularly friendly, had died just prior to the interview and he was extremely upset and depressed at the time of that interview.
. In support of his assertion that he had suffered from depression, the applicant had submitted a medical report from his GP, Dr Halpin, who had confirmed that he had been diagnosed as suffering from anxiety and depression, for which he required medication.
. In the course of the hearing before the Tribunal, the applicant had rolled up the legs of his trousers to display marks on his legs, which he alleged had been caused as a result of beatings that he had sustained at the hands of the security forces, when attending rallies or demonstrations organised by IPOB. The decision of the Tribunal noted that the applicant claimed that he had scars on his left shoulder and on his hands. However, it is not clear whether these were demonstrated to the Tribunal.
. In her decision dated 21 February 2023, the Tribunal member rejected the applicant's assertion that the scarring or marks to his body had been caused by injuries sustained by him at the hands of the security forces, when attending IPOB rallies or demonstrations. She reached that conclusion on the following basis: there was no evidence that he had received any medical treatment for his alleged wounds in Nigeria; he had not mentioned that he had been beaten and had sustained wounds when interviewed in the course of his application for international protection; he had not mentioned the beatings or wounds to his GP and as a result there was no mention thereof in the report that had been furnished by Dr Halpin. In these circumstances, the Tribunal member was not persuaded that the applicant had been beaten by the security forces while attending IPOB demonstrations, as alleged by him.
. The Tribunal member made a number of findings that were in favour of the applicant. She accepted that the applicant was a member of IPOB when he was in Nigeria; that he had taken part in demonstrations organised by IPOB in that country; that he had hosted meetings of IPOB at his father's property; and that he suffered from depression and anxiety, as set out in Dr Halpin's report.
. The Tribunal member did not accept the applicant's claim that the security forces had been searching for him in the manner alleged by him on 30 June 2022. She did not accept the affidavits that had been sworn by the applicant's brother and sister, on the basis that they had been almost identical in their wording. In addition, she noted that the event, which was said to have occurred on 30 June 2022, was not mentioned by the applicant in his s.35 interview, which had taken place almost a month later, on 22 July 2022.
. Having regard to those findings of fact, and having considered the accepted facts in the context of the COI that had been submitted, the Tribunal member was not satisfied that the applicant had suffered persecution or harm in the manner described by him, nor that he had a well-founded fear of suffering persecution or serious harm if returned to Nigeria. Accordingly, his application for international protection was refused.
. It was submitted that it was well established at law, that the Tribunal had a shared duty of cooperation with the applicant, when considering an application for international protection: see Art. 4(1) of the Qualification Directive 2004/83/EC; MM v Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform (Case C-277/11); X v IPAT (Case C-756/21).
. It was submitted that in the present case, the fact of the applicant having suffered violence when attending demonstrations in the Lagos area, had been raised in the written submissions that had been filed on his behalf before the Tribunal. At the hearing, the applicant had rolled up the legs of his trousers and had shown the marks on his legs. He had stated that there was scarring on his shoulder and hands. He had alleged that the scarring and marks on his body had been caused by state actors, when he had been beaten at various demonstrations.
. It was submitted that the Tribunal had erred in finding that his narrative, that he had been beaten by state actors due to his attendance at IPOB rallies and demonstrations, was not credible, due to the fact that the wounds were not mentioned in the report furnished by his GP, was irrational, because that report was only dealing with his mental health.
. It was submitted that as this was an extremely important element in the applicant's narrative, and if the applicant could establish by medical evidence that his...
To continue reading
Request your trial