Ireland - High Court, 15 April 2011, R. v Refugee Appeals Tribunal and Minister for Justice Equality and Law Reform [2011] IEHC 151

Facts:

The applicant was a Belarusian national who had come to Ireland in 2004 on a student visa. She claimed asylum in May 2006 after her student permission had expired. She claimed that before coming to Ireland in 2004 she had lived in Poland. While living there, she went back to Belarus to deliver some political literature (leaflets) to her brother, who was involved in politics. She was arrested by the Belarusian authorities, strip searched and detained for several hours. She managed to get back to Poland and then came to Ireland as a student. During her time in Ireland, the risk of persecution increased because of her brother’s activities.  

The Refugee Applications Commissioner refused her application at first instance. The Appeals Tribunal found that the applicant was not credible. This finding was based upon on her general demeanour while giving evidence during her appeal hearing and on three other points:

(1) that she provided vague and non-specific evidence with respect to her journey to Ireland;
(2) that she had not mentioned that her brother had been active in the Belarusian opposition or that she had been strip-searched in her interview with the Commissioner; and
(3) that her demeanour when handing in an envelope to the Tribunal which she said had been tampered with by the Belarusian authorities undermined her credibility.

Decision & reasoning:

The Appeal decision was quashed and the matter remitted to the Appeals Tribunal for re-consideration.  The Court (Cooke J.) found:

A) An asylum decision maker must be careful not to misplace reliance upon demeanour and risk construing as deliberate lack of candor a demeanour which may be the result of nervousness, of the stress of the occasion and even of the embarrassment of being an asylum seeker.

B) An apparent hesitation and uncertainty at the hearing may well be attributable to difficulties of language and comprehension. Before an asylum decision maker rejects a claim based mainly on the personal appearance and/or demeanor of the claimant, the decision-maker ought to be confident that the all the relevant facts and circumstances recounted at the hearing, and the basis of the claim, have been fully and correctly understood.  

C) It was unclear why the Tribunal Member considered the applicant’s evidence of her journey to Ireland to be vague and non-specific and/or why this was significant when the claim was essentially a sur place claim.

D) It was unclear why the Tribunal Member considered her evidence with respect to the envelope an issue of credibility.

E) The Tribunal Member had erred with respect to his finding that the applicant had not mentioned her brother’s opposition activity, when details of his involvement were present in the interview record. The Court found that this was material to the conclusion as to credibility was reached. 

Outcome:

Appeal decision quashed.