W.A.L. (Nigeria) v The International Protection Appeals Tribunal
| Jurisdiction | Ireland |
| Judge | Mr. Justice Richard Humphreys |
| Judgment Date | 26 July 2019 |
| Neutral Citation | [2019] IEHC 581 |
| Docket Number | [2019 No. 81 J.R.] |
| Court | High Court |
| Date | 26 July 2019 |
AND
[2019] IEHC 581
[2019 No. 81 J.R.]
THE HIGH COURT
JUDICIAL REVIEW
Judicial review – Asylum – International protection – Applicant seeking judicial review – Whether there was a failure to give proper probative weight to medico-legal documentation
Facts: The applicant, a national of Nigeria, came to Ireland on 26th July, 2013 and, after a period of unlawful residence, applied for asylum on 7th October, 2015. On 27th November, 2015, he married an Irish citizen and applied for residence on that basis. That was refused. On 30th March, 2016 the Refugee Applications Commissioner decided to transfer his application to another EU member state under the Dublin III Regulation, 604/2013. He appealed that decision but it was affirmed by the first respondent, the International Protection Appeals Tribunal, on 10th January, 2017. He then brought a first set of judicial review proceedings [2017 No. 72 J.R.] challenging the tribunal decision. Those proceedings were compromised and the applicant was admitted to the international protection process. His protection application was rejected by the International Protection Office on 4th May, 2018. On 31st May, 2018 he appealed to the tribunal which dismissed the appeal on 15th January, 2019. A statement of grounds was filed on 8th February, 2019, the primary relief sought being certiorari of the tribunal decision. On 15th February, 2019 leave to seek judicial review was granted. A statement of opposition was filed on 24th June, 2019. Ground 1 alleged the failure to uphold the claim under art. 15(c) of Council Directive 2004/83/EC of 29 April 2004 (the Qualification Directive). Ground 2 alleged the failure to give proper probative weight to medico-legal documentation.
Held by the High Court (Humphreys J) that the assessment of the weight to be attached to particular evidence is a matter for the decision-maker rather than the court. Humphreys J held that it is not for the court to second-guess the analysis and weighing of all of the evidence of the member of the tribunal, who saw and heard the applicant. Humphreys J held that the applicant had not shown unreasonableness or some other cognisable legal wrong.
Humphreys J held that the application would be dismissed.
Application dismissed.
The applicant is a 35 year old national of Nigeria. He left that country and applied for asylum in Italy on 19th August, 2011. It is suggested that he was paid €500 by the Italian authorities to leave. He then came to Ireland on 26th July, 2013 and, after a period of unlawful residence, applied for asylum on 7th October, 2015.
On 27th November, 2015, he married an Irish citizen and applied for residence on that basis. That was refused. Apparently he is now separated. On 30th March, 2016 the Refugee Applications Commissioner decided to transfer his application to another EU member state under the Dublin III Regulation, 604/2013. He appealed that decision but it was affirmed by the International Protection Appeals Tribunal on 10th January, 2017.
He then brought a first set of judicial review proceedings [2017 No. 72 J.R.] challenging the tribunal decision. Those proceedings were compromised and the applicant was admitted to the international protection process. His protection application was rejected by the International Protection Office on 4th May, 2018. On 31st May, 2018 he appealed to the tribunal which dismissed the appeal on 15th January, 2019.
The statement of grounds was filed on 8th February, 2019, the primary relief sought being certiorari of the tribunal decision. On 15th February, 2019 leave to seek judicial review was granted. A statement of opposition was filed on 24th June, 2019 and I have now received helpful submissions from Mr. Eamonn Dornan B.L. for the applicant and from Mr. David Dodd B.L. for the respondents.
Ground 1 alleges that ‘ The Impugned Decision is rendered invalid, contrary to Article 15 of Council Directive 2004/83/EC of 29 April 2004 (the ‘Qualification Directive’) due to the failure of the First Named Respondent to give proper regard, in light of Country of Origin Information (‘COI’), to the real risk of serious harm to the Applicant due to the internal armed conflict in Borno State: (i) The Tribunal Member found that ‘there is an internal conflict in Borno state.’ The Tribunal considered a recent Amnesty International report which referred to 65 attacks, causing 411 civilian deaths and the displacement of 1.7 million people from the three north-eastern Nigerian states, which includes Borno State. The Tribunal erred in failing to find that these objective facts, and the additional COI submitted, leads to a determination that the level of indiscriminate violence in Borno State rises to an Art. 15(c) risk of serious harm’.
The complaint made here is that the tribunal erred in failing to find that the applicant's evidence leads to a determination of risk contrary to art. 14(c) of the Qualification Directive 2004/83. That is of course a direct challenge to a factual finding of the tribunal. It does not contend that the tribunal's finding was irrational.
The ground as pleaded misunderstands the process of judicial review. It is important for the court to respect the principle of separation of powers and not to extravagantly trespass on the legislative, executive or administrative domain: see e.g. Sinnott v. Minister for Education [2001] IESC 63 [2001] 2 I.R. 505, T.D. v. Minister for Education [2001] IESC 101 [2001] 4 I.R. 259. The court on judicial review does not substitute its own judgment for that of the decision-maker as to the merits of an application: see Michael Fordham, Judicial Review Handbook, 6th Ed. (Oxford, 2012) at para. 15.5, Lennon v. DJ Clifford [1992] 1 I.R. 382, Meadows v. Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform [2010] IESC 3 [2010] 2 I.R. 701. Lady Hale put the...
To continue reading
Request your trial