Ireland - HMI v Minister for Justice and Law Reform, 2010 No. 1242 JR, 6 September 2016

Facts:

The case stems from a decision of the Refugee Appeals Tribunal which affirms the recommendation of the Refugee Applications Commissioner that the applicant should not be granted refugee status.

(i) The applicant claims, inter alia, that it is manifestly unclear from the decision whether the Tribunal Member’s rejection of the asylum claim on the basis of discrete credibility findings encompassed findings on the applicant’s ethnicity and background. It is submitted that this lack of clarity renders the decision unlawful. It is also contended that the Tribunal Member failed to make a finding on the core issue of whether the applicant was targeted in a particular place (Omdurman) because of his Darfuri/Bergid ethnicity.

 (ii). Additionally, it is submitted that there was a failure by the decision-maker to carry out any forward looking assessment, which it is argued was necessitated by the applicant’s circumstances.

Overall leave to quash the decision of the Refugee Appeals Tribunal was sought due to the fact that there was an insufficient analysis of the applicant’s claim.

Decision & reasoning:

Faherty J.  stated that the real issue for determination was whether the court on judicial review can be satisfied that the decision maker had due regard to the applicant’s claim to be a Sudanese national of Bergid/Darfuri ethnicity.

(i). The court held that the decision-maker was not necessarily obliged to expressly decide if the applicant was in Omdurman, Sudan in the period from 10th-13th of May 2008, or indeed whether he was normally resident there.

However, there was an obligation on the decision-maker to make a clear finding on the applicant’s claimed Darfuri/Bergid ethnicity given the particular situation that presented in Sudan in 2010, as acknowledged by the decision-maker herself, and, in particular, by reason of the information contained in the country of origin information reports as to the category of persons who were being targeted by Sudanese government forces in May 2008. Contrary to the respondent’s submissions, no such clear determination was made in the Tribunal Member’s decision, which was necessary “bearing in mind the forward looking nature of the Convention”.

(ii). The fact that serious credibility issues attached to aspects of the applicant’s narrative cannot be regarded as sufficient justification to negate the obligation which was on the decision-maker to conduct a forward-looking assessment. The acceptance of his nationality, of itself, required an assessment of what, if any, aspects of the applicant’s particular characteristics might put him in fear of persecution. The judge stated “the applicant’s asserted nationality and ethnicity was the springboard from which the forward looking assessment should have been commenced.” No such assessment was made in the Tribunal Member’s decision. The decision of the Refugee Appeals Tribunal was accordingly quashed. 

Outcome:

The decision of the Refugee Appeals Tribunal was overturned, and the matter was remanded to this same Tribunal for de novo consideration.