Y (Z) [Pakistan] v Refugee Appeals Tribunal

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: Mr. Justice Barr
• Judgment Date: 02 October 2014
• Neutral Citation: [2014] IEHC 498
• Court: High Court
• Date: 02 October 2014

Y (Z) [Pakistan] v Refugee Appeals Tribunal

JUDICIAL REVIEW

BETWEEN

Z.Y. (PAKISTAN)

APPLICANT

AND

REFUGEE APPEALS TRIBUNAL

RESPONDENT

AND

MINISTER FOR JUSTICE, EQUALITY AND LAW REFORM

NOTICE PARTY

[2014] IEHC 498

[No. 1033 J.R./2010]

THE HIGH COURT

Immigration and Asylum – Refugee status – Relocation - State Protection – Credibility

Facts: The applicant in this case was a Pakistani national who applied for asylum in Ireland and attended for an interview pursuant to s. 11 of the Refugee Act 1996. The Refugee Applications Commissioner made a negative recommendation, which the applicant appealed. The Refugee Appeals Tribunal (hereinafter "RAT") conducted an oral hearing and found that the applicant should not be declared a refugee. The applicant subsequently challenged the RAT"s decision on four grounds:

Failure to address country of origin information in relation to internal relocation

The RAT declined to award the applicant refugee status because the applicant could have safely and reasonably relocated within Pakistan. The applicant argued that he would be under threat from the Taliban if he were to return to his country of origin as they had a powerful network of connections throughout Pakistan. The applicant said that the Tribunal failed to make a valid internal relocation finding which complied with Regulation 7 of the European Communities (Eligibility for Protection) Regulations 2006.

The Issue of State Protection

The Tribunal also considered the country of origin information and determined that the Pakistani police were making reasonable attempts to provide protection to its citizens. The applicant submitted evidence to the contrary to show that the Pakistani police had links to jihadi and sectarian groups.

Findings of absence of continuing threat to the applicant

The RAT found that it would be unlikely that the Taliban would attack or persecute the applicant if he were to return to Pakistan. The applicant challenged this finding and said the Tribunals decision in this respect was based on speculation or conjecture.

Credibility

The applicant argued that because there was no credibility finding against him the court should have accepted the applicant"s version of events as true. The Tribunal decided that the applicant had failed to produce any documentation to corroborate his claim. The applicant provided no documentation to prove that he ran a CD shop that was attacked by the Taliban or of his hospitalisation after being assaulted.

Held by Barr J: The court found that the RAT had made a lawful and valid finding that the applicant could relocate to another area within Pakistan without suffering any harm. It determined that the Tribunal had adopted the right approach in this regard as it had considered the relevant country of origin information. The Tribunal member had applied the correct legal test that it would not be unduly harsh on the applicant to relocate because he was relatively well off. Furthermore, the court was of the opinion that there was no evidence to suggest that the applicant would be persecuted if he were to relocate.

The court determined that the Tribunal was acting within its jurisdiction when it found that the applicant could avail of State protection. This was because Pakistan had a functioning police force with the ability to provide protection to its citizens. The court also found that the Tribunal member acted within his jurisdiction in drawing the inference that it would be unlikely that the applicant would face prosecution if he returned to Pakistan. The court said it was a reasonable inference for the Tribunal to draw from the facts.

The court said it was reasonable for the Tribunal to have regard to the lack of documentation provided to support the applicant"s claim. The court found that the applicant"s submission in relation to the unlawfulness of the s. 11B finding was well made but the Tribunals error in this regard was not enough to invalidate its findings. For these reasons, the court refused the applicant"s application for certiorari of the RAT"s decision.

REFUGEE ACT 1996 S11

EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES (ELIGIBILITY FOR PROTECTION) REGS 2006 SI 518/2006 REG 7

O (AS) v REFUGEE APPEALS TRIBUNAL & MIN FOR JUSTICE UNREP COOKE 9.12.2009 2009/43/10639 2009 IEHC 607

E (M) v REFUGEE APPEALS TRIBUNAL & ORS UNREP BIRMINGHAM 27.6.2008 2008/22/4746 2008 IEHC 192

J (LO) v REFUGEE APPEALS TRIBUNAL & MIN FOR JUSTICE UNREP HOGAN 2011/27/7297 2011 IEHC 493

UNHCR HANDBOOK ON PROCEDURES & CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING REFUGEE STATUS 1992 PARA 100

HORVATH v SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPT 2000 IMM AR 205 2000 INLR 15 2000 97 1 LSG 24

O (S) v MIN FOR JUSTICE & REFUGEE APPEALS TRIBUNAL (O'GORMAN) UNREP EDWARDS 5.2.2010 2010/40/10075 2010 IEHC 151

ZHUCHKOVA v MINISTER FOR JUSTICE & REFUGEE APPEALS TRIBUNAL UNREP CLARKE 26.10.2004 2004/51/11705 2004 IEHC 414

S (DM) v MIN FOR JUSTICE UNREP PEART 24.11.2005 2005/53/11227 2005 IEHC 395

REFUGEE ACT 1996 S11B(B)

T (F) v REFUGEE APPEALS TRIBUNAL & MIN FOR JUSTICE UNREP MAC EOCHAIDH 18.4.2013 2013/49/13971 2013 IEHC 167

EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES (ELIGIBILITY FOR PROTECTION) REGS 2006 SI 518/2006 REG 5(3)

REFUGEE ACT 1996 S11B

A (A) [PAKISTAN] v REFUGEE APPEALS TRIBUNAL UNREP MAC EOCHAIDH 13.9.2013 (EX TEMPORE) [TRANSCRIPT NOT AVAILABLE]

Background

1 1. The applicant is a Pakistani national and was born on 2 ^nd February, 1964. He is a Muslim. He can speak Punjabi, Urdu and English. He got married on 4 ^th February, 1998. He has five children.

2 2. The applicant has a farm, although the size of this and its location are not evident from the papers submitted. However, of more importance, is the fact that he owned and ran a shop selling music CDs and DVDs. This was in the main bazaar in Haroonabad City. In his interview, the applicant stated that he had been operating the shop for six months before he was attacked. However, in the RAT decision, it was stated that he had been operating the shop for approximately twelve months prior to the attack.

3 3. The applicant states that on Friday, 5 ^th June, 2009, when he returned to his shop after praying at the Mosque, he received a threatening phone call. The caller told him that selling CDs and DVDs was an un-Islamic activity. He was told that he had fifteen days in which to cease trading. The applicant states that after this threatening phone call, he went to the police to report the incident. They told the applicant that it was probably someone playing a prank and not to take the call seriously. The applicant continued trading from his shop.

4 4. On 20 ^th June, 2009, the applicant received a further telephone call, in which he was told that as he had not closed the shop he should prepare to be murdered. On the following day, four men, one of whom was armed with a pistol, came into the applicant's shop and took him at gunpoint into a van. They blindfolded the applicant and took him to some other location. The applicant states that throughout the entire night he was kicked and beaten by the men. He was bleeding due to the blows to his mouth and face. The assailants threw the applicant onto the side of the road. He lost consciousness. When he awoke he was in a hospital. He was detained in hospital for four days.

5 5. While the applicant was in hospital he received word that his shop had been destroyed by a bomb. The police visited the applicant in hospital. The applicant could not recall what details they took from him. He states that he was very worried about what further action the Taliban might take against him. He fled to the home of a friend in Gujarat, which was approximately 120km from the applicant's home. He remained in Gujarat from June 2009 until early February 2010.

6 6. The applicant made contact with his brother, who was living in Ireland. He agreed to act as a sponsor for the applicant, so that he could come to Ireland on a visitor's visa. In due course, the applicant received the requisite visa on his passport. He left Pakistan on 13 ^th February, 2010, and flew to Turkey and from there he flew to Ireland.

7 7. The applicant stayed with his brother for two weeks. He then applied for asylum in the State. By the time of his s. 11 interview, he had lost his passport, which the applicant stated had fallen out of his pocket. He had not reported it lost to the gardaií as he did not speak enough English.

8 8. The applicant stated that he phoned his mother and learnt that some men had called to the family home looking for him. He states that these were Taliban extremists. Nobody reported this incident to the police.

9 9. The applicant filled out the questionnaire and attended for an interview pursuant to s. 11 of the Refugee Act 1996, as amended. The Refugee Applications Commissioner (hereinafter "RAC") made a negative recommendation on 13 ^th April, 2010. The applicant appealed this recommendation to the Refugee Appeals Tribunal (hereinafter "RAT"). After conducting an oral hearing the RAT in a decision dated 29 ^th June, 2010, found that the applicant should not be declared to be a refugee. The applicant challenges the decision of the RAT on a number of grounds. These are set out hereunder.

Failure to address country of origin information in relation to internal relocation

10 10. In its decision, the RAT determined that the applicant did not qualify for refugee status because he could safely and reasonably avail of internal relocation in Pakistan, which has a population of 167 million. The locations identified by the Tribunal were Karachi, Lahore and Islamabad. The applicant argues that in making this finding on internal relocation, the Tribunal failed to consider the claim of the applicant that the Taliban had a strong network all over Pakistan, such that internal relocation would not alleviate the threat that he...