Zabolotnaya v Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform
| Jurisdiction | Ireland |
| Judge | Mr Justice Michael Peart |
| Judgment Date | 24 November 2004 |
| Neutral Citation | [2004] IEHC 367 |
| Docket Number | Record Number:No. 762 JR/2002 |
| Court | High Court |
| Date | 24 November 2004 |
[2004] IEHC 367
THE HIGH COURT
Between:
And
Citations:
REFUGEE ACT 1996 S11(2)
REFUGEE ACT 1996 S13(1)
REFUGEE ACT 1996 S2
K (G) V MIN JUSTICE 2002 1 ILRM 81
ART 26 OF THE CONSTITUTION & S5 & S10 OF THE ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS (TRAFFICKING) BILL 1999 2000 2 IR 360
R V STRATFORD-UPON-AVON DISTRICT COUNCIL EX-PARTE JACKSON 1985 1 WLR 1319
RAINSFORD V LIMERICK CORPORATION 1995 2 ILRM 561
GUERIN V GUERIN 1992 2 IR 287
R V MINISTRY OF DEFENCE EX PARTE SMITH 1996 QB 517
GOODWIN-GILL THE REFUGEE IN INTERNATIONAL LAW 1983 2ED 67
ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS (TRAFFICKING) ACT 2000 S5
RSC O.84
IMMIGRATION ACT 1999
CONSTITUTION ART 26
Immigration - Asylum - Judicial review - Extension of time - Whether good and sufficient reason to extend time - Strength of applicant’s case - Illegal Immigrants (Trafficking) Act 2000, s. 5
The applicants sought an extension of time for bringing applications pursuant to
s. 5 of the Illegal Immigrants (Trafficking) Act 2000 on the grounds that there was good and sufficient reason to extend the time.
Held by Peart J. in refusing to extend the time that the weakness of the grounds put forward by the applicants by way of challenge to the decisions tipped the balance in favour of refusing the extension of time sought. In addition, the applicants had not established substantial grounds in relation to the reliefs sought under Order 84 of the Rules of the Superior Courts.
Reporter: R.W.
The applicants arrived in this country from Latvia on the 26th October 1999. They appear to have been transported in a locked freight lorry from Riga. Upon arrival they each claimed asylum on the ground that they were being persecuted in Latvia by what are described in the application as "Neo-Nazi organisations", as a result of the second named applicant's membership of the KGB during the years 1981–1986. He states that he was sentenced to death by this organisation along with over fifty other such former KGB members and this fact, he says, was made known in the press. It is also stated in the applications that they have been harassed in their home prior to their departure by being threatened on the telephone, being insulted in various unspecified ways, and specifically that an attempt was made to kill the first named applicant, as a result of which she attended hospital with two knife wounds. It is stated also that while she was in hospital their apartment was broken into and their passports were stolen so that they could not escape. It was after this, that they decided to leave Latvia.
It is claimed by both applicants that they have no nationality. This is because they were refused Latvian citizenship when they applied for it in 1992, since neither of them had been born in Latvia or had close relatives living there before 1940. At his interview he was asked about the neo-Nazi organisation which he claimed was threatening them, and he stated that it was composed mainly of young people who during 1995/96. and maybe also 1997, organised explosions in Riga, and wanted to liberate Latvia from outsiders who came to live there.
He stated also that he had found pout from an article in the "Central Press" that there had been a secret session of the Court of this organisation that he had been sentenced to death by it. He did not get any written notification of this, but received verbal threats on the telephone. He stated that he had no direct evidence to link the stabbing of his wife to this organisation, but he took his wife out of the hospital after ten days, although he has no medical certificates relating to this.
He was asked whether he had sought protection from the authorities for himself and his wife, and he replied that he did not want to waste his time by contacting them, although he says that on just one occasion, he reported the abusive phone calls to the police who, he says, told him to pay no attention to them. He never reported the injuries which his wife received, to the police in writing because, he says, the police only accept complaints in the Latvian language, and he does not write Latvian. He also stated that he did not think that it would be safe for him to return to Latvia and seek state protection, because he felt sure that there would be riots and he did not wish to be part of it. He also stated that he had never applied for a visa, and neither had his wife, in any Western European country. It was put to him that in fact he had been given a visa issued by the German Embassy in Riga for travel to England in 1999, but he stated that he nor his wife had never been in England, and had no wish to. He was given another opportunity to consider this response and he replied:
"I am very afraid that I will be deported home because I was issued a Schengen Visa to Amsterdam for several days at the end of December 1998. It coincided with the neo-Nazi sentence. "
He then went on to explain that in fact they had flown to Amsterdam via London and that they had wanted to apply for asylum in Holland. They apparently tried to apply for asylum in London but they refused and sent a request for information to Germany because Germany had issued the Schengen Visa. They were told that Germany would deal with the matter, but the applicants did not wish that to happen because They knew that Germany does not accept asylum seekers from Eastern Europe. He went on to explain that since it was clear that they would be deported home by Germany, they decided to travel by lorry from London to this State on 24/25 October 1999. He stated that in fact the Authorities in England took an application for asylum in December 1998 and after 8/9 months a decision was given that the application would be considered in Germany. They appealed, but the appeal was refused in October 1999, and that is when they came to this State.
The interview with the first named applicant contains similar information, but in considerably more detail especially in relation to the stabbing injuries she received in October 1999. She does not mention the travel to Amsterdam and London, but stated that they travelled by lorry from Riga to Dublin.
The usual reports of an Authorised officer under s.11(2) of the Refugee Act,1996(as amended) were prepared in respect of each applicant, as were Reports and recommendations under s.13(1) thereof.
In relation to the second named applicant, the RAC officer notes that he gave largely false information until the later stages of his interview. It also notes that the applicant seemed most reluctant to act on a request that he obtain from his English solicitor, whom he named simply as "John" in Gloucester, in relation to his application for asylum in England. The Report and Recommendation states at para 1.9 that in summary the applicant has not substantiated any of his statements, and that"for clear reasons, related to his admission of earlier false statements to the Department of Justice, his overall credibility has to be seriously questioned…"
In relation to the first named applicant, the RAC officer finds that her credibility is completely undermined in relation to her evidence that she was receiving threats and was assaulted between February 1999 and October 1999 in Latvia, and that this was not true in view of her husband's admission at interview that they had left for Holland at the end of 1998 and having stopped in London had applied for asylum there, and which was eventually refused in October 1999 whereupon they came to this State. It is concluded that there is no evidence that her journey to Ireland was the result of what is described as"a desperate need to flee from persecution in Latvia."
Recommendations that they should not be given declarations as to refugee status were notified to the applicants each by letter dated 11 September 2001 (re-issued 25th September 2001). Grounds of Appeal were filed and the appeals were in due course refused by a Decision dated 27th July 2002. The Grounds of Appeal were common to each appeal, and having outlined the facts of the cases, submitted that the applicants fear assault or death at the hands of neo-Nazis if they are returned to Latvia; that they were persecuted in Latvia as members of a particular social group based on the second named applicant's employment with the KGB and on the basis of their Russian ethnic origins.
The Decision sets out the evidence in great detail. Towards the end of the recital of evidence, it refers to the fact that the second named applicant had been untruthful in his questionnaire about previously visiting another European country, and also that it had turned out not to be true that his passport had been stolen and that in fact it was with the UK authorities, and furthermore that while he had stated in his questionnaire that there had been an attempt to kill, his wife before they left Latvia, he had told the Tribunal that he "deeply regretted saying this" and that there had been no attack on his wife.
In relation to the first named applicant the Decision also sets out the evidence in great detail, and states that at the hearing before the Tribunal, this applicant had also admitted that it was not true that she had been followed in Latvia before leaving Latvia, and also that she had not been attacked.
The Tribunal Member then proceeds to deal with the submissions made on their behalf by their solicitor, Mr Con Pendred. These submissions were that the applicants were suffering persecution on account of their Russian ethnicity, and their membership of a social group. He had referred to the...
To continue reading
Request your trial