Case summaries

This case concerned the treatment of evidence from unaccompanied minors. The applicant was an unaccompanied minor from Afghanistan. He claimed asylum on the basis of a fear of persecution both by the Taliban and the Afghan government. The Refugee Appeals Tribunal refused his refugee appeal on the grounds that the applicant was not credible and that his claim was not objectively well-founded. The Court found that the Tribunal Member had engaged in impermissible speculation and conjecture in relation to the applicant’s prospect of State protection in Afghanistan, that the Tribunal Member had imputed expectations to the applicant without any consideration of the applicant’s level of maturity at the time, and that the Tribunal Member had failed to consider whether the applicant’s fears in relation to the Taliban were realistic having regard to his age, maturity and the particular circumstances in Northern Afghanistan.

The applicant complained that the refusal to recommend refugee status at first instance contained errors such that on appeal the “core claim” was effectively being heard for the first time, and further the subsidiary protection assessment was not in compliance with statutory requirements which gave effect to the Qualification Directive; and that he should have had a chance to comment on country of origin information used in the assessment of his application.

The Office of Immigration and Nationality (OIN) found the applicant not credible and therefore did not assess the risk of serious harm. Instead the OIN granted protection against refoulement. The Metropolitan Court ruled that the OIN was obliged to assess conditions for subsidiary protection and serious harm even if the applicant was not found credible.

This case concerned a challenge to the Tribunal’s conduct of a asylum appeal hearing (alleged pre-judging of the case against the applicant due to an argument with the applicant’s lawyer) as well as the Tribunal’s reasoning (alleged flaws in credibility analysis and failure to share investigative burden with the applicant, as required by UNHCR handbook). The challenge was unsuccessful.

The case concerned an appeal against a refusal to grant refugee status on the grounds that the applicant lacked credibility as the country of origin information (COI) submitted by the applicant was not verified by the national documentation service providing COI. 

The discrepancies between the evidence which the Administration and the asylum Applicant presented to the Council of State created serious doubts about whether the facts invoked by the Applicant to confirm his refugee status were correctly recorded and in general about the lawful examination of the said application in compliance with the procedures stipulated by the provisions of Articles 2(3) and 3(7) of Presidential Decree 61/1999.

Insofar as the Migration Office relied on the Applicant’s claim that he was a member of the SCNC and recognised this ground for the purposes of the subsidiary protection procedure without disputing the claim of membership of the SCNC, and insofar as the deliberations on the possibility of serious harm resulting from this membership led to the granting of subsidiary protection, it seems illogical that the Migration Office disputed these grounds in the asylum procedure because of the unreliability of the Applicant’s claim regarding membership, concluded that the Applicant had failed to demonstrate a well-founded fear of persecution on this ground, and thus refused to grant him asylum on this basis. 

The case concerns whether or not the accelerated procedure used in the applicant’s claim was consistent with Art 23.4 of the Asylum Procedures Directive which allows for an accelerated procedure. It was found that the accelerated procedure was consistent with the Asylum Procedures Directive because the applicant was found not to be credible.

This case concerned the insufficient sourcing of evidence relied upon by the decision maker in dismissing the applicant’s claim for protection. It was found to be a violation of Art 16.1 of the Asylum Procedures Directive where the decision was insufficiently sourced in the applicant’s file. Further that this violation is not remedied by making specific references to those sources before the court.