Ireland - High Court, 12 October 2011, A.A. v Refuge Appeals Tribunal and Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, [2011] IEHC 389
Keywords:
| Keywords |
|
Internal protection
Description
Where in a part of the country of origin there is no well-founded fear of being persecuted or no real risk of suffering serious harm and the applicant can reasonably be expected to stay in that part of the country. |
|
Gender Based Persecution
Description
‘Gender-related persecution’ is used to encompass the range of different claims in which gender is a relevant consideration in the determination of refugee status. Gender refers to the relationship between women and men based on socially or culturally constructed and defined identities, status, roles and responsibilities that are assigned to one sex or another. Gender is not static or innate but acquires socially and culturally constructed meaning over time. Gender-related claims may be brought by either women or men, although due to particular types of persecution, they are more commonly brought by women. Gender-related claims have typically encompassed, although are by no means limited to, acts of sexual violence, family/domestic violence, coerced family planning, female genital mutilation, punishment for transgression of social mores, and discrimination against homosexuals." |
Headnote:
This case concerns whether the Tribunal correctly applied the test for internal flight and / or state protection.
Facts:
The applicant fled Morocco because of her fear of persecution on grounds of her liberal lifestyle, which was not accepted by her strict Muslim family and neighbours. In particular the applicant’s out-of-wedlock relationship with a man was not accepted. This led to her house being stoned and the man in question being attacked by local villagers. The applicant fled to a city and went into hiding, before leaving the country. She sought asylum in Ireland and this was refused by the government, and also on appeal by the Refugee Appeals Tribunal.The applicant was found to be credible throughout, but the Tribunal found that internal protection was open to her: she could relocate to more liberal areas in Morocco and thereby avoid persecution. She could also avail of State protection, which she had not attempted to do.
Decision & reasoning:
It was argued by the applicant that the Tribunal had misapplied the test for state protection, and had not had regard to the true test, as outlined in Reg 2 of the Protection Regulations 2006 [which transposes Art 7.2 of the Qualification Directive], which requires an examination of whether an effective legal system is in place. The Court held that this was not the case; the Tribunal had applied the correct test, and had conducted a balanced, fair assessment of the country of origin information before concluding that internal protection and state protection was available. This view was one which was open to the Tribunal to make, given the evidence. Accordingly the decision was upheld.
Outcome:
Judicial review was refused.
Relevant International and European Legislation:
Cited National Legislation:
| Cited National Legislation |
| Ireland - European Communities (Eligibility for Protection) Regulations 2006 (SI No.518 of 2006) - Reg 2 |
Cited Cases:
| Cited Cases |
| Ireland - E v Minister for Justice Equality and Law Reform (Unreported, High Court, 24 June 2005) |