T (A) v Refugee Appeals Tribunal and Others
| Jurisdiction | Ireland |
| Judge | Ms. Justice Faherty |
| Judgment Date | 22 September 2015 |
| Neutral Citation | [2015] IEHC 587 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [2015] 9 JIC 2203 |
| Court | High Court |
| Date | 22 September 2015 |
[2015] IEHC 587
THE HIGH COURT
BETWEEN
AND
Asylum, Immigration & Nationality – The Refugee Act 1996 – Appeal against the decision of the Refugee Appeals Tribunal – Order of certiorari – Regulation 5.1 (a) of the European Communities (Eligibility for Protection) Regulations 2006 – Fear of persecution – Whether evidence of applicant credible – Country of origin information
Facts: The applicant sought an order of certiorari for quashing the decision of the first named respondent affirming the recommendation of the Refugee Applications Commissioner not to declare the applicant a refugee. The applicant contended that she was under threat from state authorities in the country of origin because of her association with a university lecturer who had since been killed for imputed political opinion and disposal of relevant files by the applicant which were given to her by that lecturer.
Ms. Justice Faherty refused to grant an order of certiorari to the applicant. The Court upheld the adverse findings made by the first named respondent as there were stark inconsistencies between the version given by the applicant and her S. 11 interview in relation to certain facts. The Court, however, held that two findings in relation to the travel of the applicant from the country of origin to Ireland via Italy were impugned. The Court observed that it was permissible for a decision-maker not to consider the country of origin information where a fundamental lack of credibility was found. The Court held that it was sufficient compliance with reg. 5.1 (a) of the European Communities (Eligibility for Protection) Regulations 2006 if there was consideration given to the country of origin information giving account of the nature of weight attached to it and reasons given for its rejection. The Court observed that the subjective fears of the applicant of getting persecuted were not objectively well founded as mentioned by the applicant that she remained in the family home unharmed while her brother had allegedly been detained by the police.
JUDGMENT of Ms. Justice Faherty delivered on the 22nd day of September, 2015
1. The applicant seeks an order of certiorari of the decision of the first named respondent affirming the recommendation of the Refugee Appeals Commissioner not to declare her a refugee.
2. Extension of time
The applicant was approximately nineteen days outside of the statutory period within which to initiate judicial review proceedings. In her affidavit, the applicant provided an explanation in that she was in the process of changing solicitors. In those circumstances and noting that she moved promptly to procure new legal representation upon receipt of the letter of 17 February 2012 from her erstwhile solicitor, the court is satisfied to grant the necessary extension of time.
3. The applicant is an Algerian national of Berber ethnicity who claimed that she worked as a tailor in selling clothes at a named university in Algeria. She asserted in the course of the asylum process that one of her clients was a named female lecturer who was associated with the National Co-ordination for Change and Democracy (N CCD) in Algeria. The applicant claimed that this lecturer asked her to look after a file or files which the applicant agreed to do. However, some people from the government intelligence wanted the files and on learning this, the applicant disposed of them. Notwithstanding having done so. the applicant believed that she was being watched and followed by the police and it transpired that they duly searched her bag in the town square in Algiers but did not locate any of the files. Accordingly, she was not arrested. It was the applicant's claim however that her brother was arrested by the police in the family home, in connection with the files, while the applicant was visiting her aunt. She believed her brother was arrested in her stead. The police were looking for the file or files given to the applicant. Her brother was released after two weeks and upon his release he advised the applicant that he had been tortured and interrogated about the location of the files and about the applicant. The applicant then left to stay with her aunt where she remained for approximately two weeks, telephoning and visiting her family home on occasion. According to the applicant, a lecturer at the university was killed on the 23 April 2011 and on the 10 May 2011 the lecturer who had given her the files was also killed. The applicant claimed that she left her home in Algiers in June 2011 and drove to Tunisia. She met a stranger there who helped her fly to Italy. She did not want to stay in Italy as she did not know anyone there and she asked the stranger to bring her to Ireland. The applicant had a brother and sister in Ireland. She arrived in the state on the 22 June 2011.
4. She commenced her asylum application on the 27 June 2011 and completed an ASYl form on that date. Her questionnaire was completed on the 1 st of July 2011. She claimed persecution on grounds of political opinion and feared returning to Algeria on grounds of "torture, imprisonment or murder".
5. She underwent a s.l 1 interview on 13 July 2011 through the medium of Arabic.
6. The s. 13 report issued on 26 October 2011. The report found that the applicant had not established a well founded fear of persecution on the basis of a number of adverse credibility findings made by the Commissioner.
7. A Notice of Appeal was lodged with the first named respondent under cover of a letter dated 17 November 2011.
8. The Tribunal hearing took place on the 19 January 2012 and the decision issued on 30 January 2012, rejecting the appeal on credibility grounds.
9. Proceedings were duly instituted by the applicant challenging the decision. The grounds on which the decision is sought to be challenged are as follows:
· The Tribunal misconstrued the evidence before it. In particular, the National Co-ordination for Change and Democracy is a movement for political change comprised of many different elements and organisations.
· The Tribunal erred in law and failed to consider a core element of the applicants claim, that as a person supportive of the National Co-ordination for Change and Democracy, she was exposed to persecution. Prejudgment cannot be discounted.
· The Tribunal erred in law in basing its decision wholly on adverse credibility findings, many based on conjecture and others relating to peripheral matters, without having any regard to the country of origin reports and the evidence of past persecution.
· The Tribunal erred in law in taking into account matters irrelevant to its determinations and/or failed to take into account relevant considerations.
· The Tribunal erred in law in failing to lawfully speculate on the likelihood of exposure of the applicant to persecutory risk on refoulement to Algeria in the light of her imputed political opinion.
10. The Tribunal Member commenced his analysis by stating:
"The Tribunal was not generally satisfied as to the appellant's credibility in relation to the particular claim for asylum advanced by her. Some of her evidence just ran contrary to common sense and was implausible and on other occasions her evidence was contradictory, vague and incoherent."
He then set out thirteen examples, which are effectively the credibility findings which are sought to be impugned in the course of these proceedings. They are recited hereunder and numbered by this court for the purposes of clarity.
i (i) "The appellant claimed at the outset of the appeal hearing that she was a member of the National Co-ordination for Change and Democracy Party, and joined that party in January, 2011. This contradicts her earlier contention that she was not a member of this party. (see, for example, p 3 of her Notice of Appeal and Q 32 of the s. 11 interview)."
ii (ii) "The appellant then claimed that her acquaintance, [the named university lecturer] gave her a file for safekeeping in February, 2011. Again, this contradicts her earlier statements to the effect that [the lecturer] gave her the file in March, 2011." (Q 23 s. 11 interview).
iii (iii) "The appellant was clear at the appeal hearing that [the lecturer] only ever handed over one file to her and that this file was about half an inch thick. Again, this contradicts her earlier contention that [the lecturer] had handed over more than one file to her (see, for example, p. 3 of her Notice of Appeal)."
iv (iv) "The appellant then claimed that at the time [the lecturer] handed over the file to her, she explained to the appellant that the reason she was doing so was that the police were looking for this file. Again, this contradicts her earlier statement that it was only some time after she had been handed the file that the appellant "discovered the government intelligence officials were looking for these files". (see, for example, p. 3 of her Notice of Appeal and Q 33 of the s.11 interview)."
v (v) "The appellant told the Tribunal that she disposed of the file in a bin immediately on the same day after [the lecturer] gave them to her and had never brought them back to her house as she was fearful of the consequences which had been explained to her by [the lecturer] of holding the file. Again, this contradicts what she had previously said to the effect that it was only after some time that she disposed of the files (plural - sic.) and that she disposed of it by merely throwing it on the road (see, for example, p. 3 of her Notice of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
E.S.O. v The International Protection Office and Others
...debate with the person who is to receive the decision every one of the conclusions on credibility that might be made (see A.T. v. R.A.T. [2015] IEHC 587). In B.W. v. R.A.T. (No. 2) [2015] IEHC 759, Humphreys J. set out six categories of credibility finding (at para. 20) and was of the view ......