T.A. v Refugee Appeals Tribunal

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: Mr. Justice Feeney
• Judgment Date: 06 December 2007
• Neutral Citation: [2007] IEHC 462
• Court: High Court
• Date: 06 December 2007
• Docket Number: RECORD NO. 566 JR/2006

[2007] IEHC 462

THE HIGH COURT

RECORD NO. 566 JR/2006

A (T) v Refugee Appeals Tribunal

JUDICIAL REVIEW

BETWEEN

T. A.

APPLICANT

AND

REFUGEE APPEALS TRIBUNAL

RESPONDENT

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

BUJARI v MIN FOR JUSTICE & REFUGEE APPEALS TRIBUNAL UNREP FINLAY-GEOGHEGAN 7.5.2003 2003/7/1414 2003 IEHC 18

CAMARA v MIN FOR JUSTICE & ORS UNREP KELLY 26.7.2000 2000/4/1247

OJELABI v REFUGEE APPEALS TRIBUNAL & ORS UNREP PEART 28.2.2005 2005/48/10025 2005 IEHC 42

R (JB) v REFUGEE APPEALS TRIBUNAL & ORS UNREP PEART 31.7.2007 2007/52/11193 2007 IEHC 288

IMMIGRATION

Asylum

Judicial review - Whether substantial grounds for review- Claim based on racial discrimination - Ethiopia - Country of origin information - Adverse credibility finding - Factors in considering approach of RAT regarding credibility - Role of decision-maker - Jurisdiction to intervene where breach of fair procedures or lack of jurisdiction - Whether credibility finding intra vires - Whether credibility finding rationally based - Whether RAT should consider country of origin information notwithstanding adverse finding of credibility - Imafu v Minister for Justice [2005] IEHC 182, (Unrep, Clarke J, 27/5/2005) applied; Bujari v Minister for Justice (Unrep, Finlay Geoghegan J, 7/5/2003), Camara v Minister for Justice (Unrep, Kelly J, 26/7/2000), Ojelabi v RAT [2005] IEHC 288, (Unrep, Peart J, 28/2/2005) and R (JB) v RAT [2007] IEHC 288, (Unrep, Peart J, 31/7/2007) considered - Leave granted (2006/566JR - Feeney J - 6/12/2007) [2007] IEHC 462

A (T) v RAT

Judgment of

Mr. Justice Feeney

delivered on the 6th day of December 2007

1 The applicant seeks leave to apply by way of judicial review challenging the decision of the Refugee Appeals Tribunal. The applicant must establish substantial grounds. The applicant was born in Ethiopia in 1982. He is a member of the Oromo ethnic group and speaks Oromo as his first language and required the assistance of a translator during the hearings before the Refugee Appeals Tribunal. He claims to be a married man with no children and that his wife and the remainder of his family still reside in Ethiopia.

2 The applicant's claim for asylum is based upon race in that he claims that as a member of the Oromo ethnic group in his country of origin they are discriminated against, mistreated, and subjected to racial oppression and are persons who are vulnerable targets for persecution in Ethiopia. His claim is based on imputed political opinion as a supporter of the Oromo Liberation Front. There is country of origin information on the papers before me that is supportive of some oppression and mistreatment of the Oromo ethnic group but there is no determination of whether he is affected by same.

3 The applicant gives a history of arrest in 2002 by reason of alleged support of the Oromo Liberation Front by the TPLF government. He claims imprisonment for a year without charge or trial. He claims that he was assaulted whilst in jail, that he eventually escaped, that he then fled the country to Kenya and ultimately travelled to Ireland via a third country on false documents.

4 It is clear from the report of the Refugee Applications Commissioner and the appeal therefrom and the decision of the Refugee Appeals Tribunal that the issue of the applicant's credibility was significantly in doubt. The decision of the Refugee Appeals Tribunal concludes on a number of central issues that the applicant did not provide full and truthful information. There is a sound and rational basis for such conclusion. In particular, the use and production of a clearly tampered identity card without credible explanation as to how or why it was altered is of significance. This was the only document linking the applicant to his stated name and was a crucial document. The applicant's account of his travel to Ireland was far from full and was on the face of it highly improbable. The use of a false passport with the photo of a person other than the applicant attached thereto for a multi-stage journey is difficult to believe. There are also further matters that undermine the applicant's account of his personal history and origin, sufficient to conclude an absence of full and open cooperation as required by the process. The applicant's personal history had not been established as credible.

5 The applicant seeks to quash the decision of the RAT. The main ground identified is the alleged failure to give reasons for a lack of credibility. Having had the opportunity to...