A.O. v Refugee Appeals Tribunal
| Jurisdiction | Ireland |
| Judge | Mr. Justice Gerard Hogan |
| Judgment Date | 27 February 2017 |
| Neutral Citation | [2017] IECA 51 |
| Date | 27 February 2017 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Ireland) |
| Docket Number | Neutral Citation Number: [2017] IECA 51 Record No. 2015/534 |
[2017] IECA 51
THE COURT OF APPEAL
Hogan J.
Peart J.
Hogan J.
Hedigan J.
Neutral Citation Number: [2017] IECA 51
Record No. 2015/534
AND
International protection – Authenticity of documents – Credibility – Applicant seeking international protection – Whether adverse credibility conclusions reached by the respondent were unreasonable in law
Facts: The second respondent, the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, appealed to the Court of Appeal from a decision of the High Court (Barr J) delivered on the 17th April 2015 which quashed the earlier determination of the first respondent, the Refugee Appeals Tribunal, which had ruled adversely to the asylum claim of the applicant ([2015] IEHC 253).
Held by Hogan J that the issue which arose on this appeal was essentially the following: to what extent is the decision-maker on an application for international protection obliged to investigate the authenticity of documents relied upon by the applicant in those cases where the credibility of her account is under challenge? Hogan J held that a decision-maker is not obliged as a general rule to conduct his or her own investigations in order to vouchsafe the authenticity of a document relied on by an applicant for international protection, although there may be special circumstances where this is indeed required. Hogan J held that while it is clear from the decision of the European Court of Human Rights in Singh v Belgium (Application No. 33210/11) (2 October 2012) that Contracting States may be under such an obligation in particular cases where the authenticity of the documentation is critical and the implications for the claimants otherwise potentially grave, there is, however, no general rule to this effect. Hogan J held that, contrary to the conclusion of the High Court, the Tribunal member cannot be faulted on this account; she plainly conducted a careful review of the documents relied on by the applicant and concluded for stated reasons that they were unlikely to be authentic.
Hogan J held that as he could not say that the adverse credibility conclusions which the Tribunal member reached were unreasonable in law, he would therefore allow the Minister’s appeal.
Appeal allowed.
To what extent is the decision-maker on an application for international protection obliged to investigate the authenticity of documents relied upon by the applicant in those cases where the credibility of her account is under challenge? That is essentially the issue which arises on this appeal from a decision of the High Court (Barr J.) delivered on the 17th day of April 2015 which quashed the earlier determination of the Refugee Appeal Tribunal which had ruled adversely to asylum claim of the applicant in the present proceedings: see AO v. Refugee Applications Commissioner [2015] IEHC 253.
The applicant is a Nigerian national who was born in May 1991. She arrived in the State as far back as 9th January 2007 when she was 15 years old and was still a minor. The fact that, some ten years on from that date, she remains in the asylum system with her case thus far unresolved is wholly unacceptable and, in its own way, speaks volumes as to how dysfunctional the entire immigration system has been allowed to become. I recognise, of course, that the Oireachtas has recently endeavoured to reform and overhaul our system of international protection with the enactment of the International Protection Act 2015. One can merely hope that the new system will not produce cases like the present one where apparently endemic delays blight the lives of those forced to wait indefinitely in our system of direct provision, while at the same time undermining public confidence in the effectiveness of our system of public administration and the general integrity of our system of immigration control.
Turning now to the facts of the present case, the applicant's case is that she was orphaned at the age of 13 and then sent to live with her uncle. He in turn neglected her, forced her to live as a street vendor and denied her any education. The applicant claimed that in 2006 - her uncle tried to force her to marry a friend of his known as ‘the Chief’. Both her uncle and his friend were, it is said, members of a secret society known as the Ogboni Society. The applicant stated that when she refused to marry the Chief, her uncle compelled her to leave his house.
The applicant then maintains that at that point she was abducted by a number of men who brought her to the Chief. She was then falsely detained and not provided with any food. On the following day the Chief came and tried to rape her, but she screamed and the Chief left the room. Sometime after that, while there was a party going on at the Chief's house, one of the Chief's servants allowed her to escape.
The applicant next states that she was unwilling to go the police as she was very young and was not even sure where the Chief's house was located and nor did she know what to say to the police. The applicant maintained that while she was roaming the streets she was then knocked down by a motorcycle. A woman who witnessed the accident came to her aid and brought her to hospital. The applicant was unsure as to the duration of her stay in the hospital.
When the applicant was discharged from the hospital she went with the lady who had come to her aid with a view to staying with her for a few days. When they reached the lady's house, however, they saw that it was burning. The applicant stated that there was a letter on the gate which instructed the lady to bring the applicant to the Chief and told her that if she did not do so, she and the applicant would be killed. The letter did not give the name of the Chief, nor did it give any contact details for him, nor for that matter, any address.
The lady who had assisted her up to that point now told the applicant that she could not stay at the house as she did not want any further trouble. The applicant stated that when she was on the road crying, another lady came to her aid and brought her to the African Refugee Foundation (‘AREF’). The applicant said that she stayed at the Foundation for a period of ten days and was not allowed outside. The lady who brought her to the Foundation brought the applicant her food in her room and this lady apparently told Ms. O. to call her ‘aunty’. The applicant stated that people came to the Foundation and made threats as it was known that she was residing there.
The applicant then says that after a number of days at the Foundation she was brought by the lady called ‘aunty’ to an airport. She did not know the name of the airport that she departed from. At the airport she was given a refugee card and a letter from the Foundation. During the journey, the lady known as aunty would walk in front of her. They landed in an unknown country which, the applicant said, was not an African country, but she was not informed where she was going. After they arrived in Ireland the applicant said that she could not find this lady and she then proceeded to apply for asylum.
In its report dated 3rd July 2009 prepared under s. 13(1) of the Refugee Act 1996 (as amended), the ORAC concluded that the applicant's claim failed on credibility grounds, saying that her statements lacked coherence and plausibility. While the ORAC could not vouch for the authenticity of the two documents said to have come from AREF, it also pointed to difficulties presented by the letter from the Foundation. The website given on the notepaper did not refer to the website used by AREF, but appeared rather ‘to be a domain name for sale’. The telephone number given was not accurate and the email address was also missing a letter. The ORAC then observed:-
‘It is expected that the official letterhead paper for an organisation such as this would not contain these mistakes. This serves to undermine the authenticity of this document.
The letter from the African Refugees Foundation states that the applicant was under their care for three months. However, the applicant has stated that she was with this group for 10 days. There are other inconsistencies such as the date when the applicant was thrown out of her uncle's house. These inconsistencies also serve to undermine the veracity of the information contained in the letter.’
The applicant then appealed this decision to the Refugee Appeals Tribunal (‘RAT’) which ultimately ruled adversely to her claim. In its decision of 28th September 2009 the RAT made a number of adverse credibility findings against the applicant which can be summarised as follows.
First, in relation to the note left at the lady's gate, the applicant stated that there was no name on the note. The applicant was not aware of the Chief's name or address. The lady did not know the Chief. The note apparently stated that the lady should bring the applicant to him, or he would kill both of them. The Tribunal member held that it was not credible that the Chief would not have given some indication of his address or contact details to enable the lady to comply with his instructions. The Tribunal member furthermore held that it was not credible that the Chief would not send someone to get the applicant, rather than leave a note on the front gate, thereby allowing the applicant a further opportunity to escape.
Second, the Tribunal member pointed out that the applicant did not know the name of the lady who had first brought her to hospital and who...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
T.T. (Zimbabwe) v Refugee Appeals Tribunal
...but it also failed to examine the art. 3 complaint in any real way at all. 13 In that light, Hogan J. in A.O. v. Refugee Appeals Tribunal [2017] IECA 51 identifies the crucial issues when in para. 39 of his judgment he notes that ' The Court observed that since the documents were at the hea......
-
A.M.C.(Mozambique} v The Refugee Appeals Tribunal No.2
...J held that, insofar as S.R. was concerned, that issue had been dealt with by the Court of Appeal in A.O. v Refugee Appeals Tribunal [2017] IECA 51. Humphreys J held that the fifth question was not susceptible to a simple answer and could only be dealt with on a fact-specific basis; thus it......
-
M.S.R (Pakistan) v The International Protection Appeals Tribunal ; M.S. v The International Protection Appeals Tribunal No.2
...3 The question proposed by both applicants is ‘ what are the “special circumstances” as set out by the Court of Appeal in A.O. v. Refugee Appeals Tribunal which would compel an International Protection decision-maker to engage in an investigation into the authenticity of a document relied o......
-
I.L. v The International Protection Appeals Tribunal
...(Barr J), 16th June 2015). However, the controlling authority was then, and remains, the decision of the Court of Appeal in that case; [2017] IECA 51, (Unreported, Court of Appeal (Hogan J; Peart and Hedigan JJ 53 Giving judgment for the Court of Appeal, Hogan J concluded (at para. 45) that......