Case summaries

Subsidiary protection was granted on grounds that the applicant, from Iran, could be at risk inhuman or degrading treatment. The applicant based his asylum claim on the political activities of his brother in his country of asylum, as well as his own participation in protests in Iran. The Court found that after having spent two years in Finland as an asylum seeker it was likely that the applicant would be of special interest to the Iranian authorities.

This decision concerns an appeal lodged before the Supreme Court against the decision of the High National Court, confirming the Ministry of Interior’s decision to revoke the refugee status of the appellant and her children. This revocation was issued following the voluntary return of the applicant’s husband to Colombia, his country of origin.

This applicant in this case was HIV positive. He was receiving treatment in Ireland while he was an asylum-seeker. Challenging a deportation order made against him, he claimed that he would be exposed to serious discrimination and stigmatisation in Nigeria and would have difficulty accessing treatment in public hospitals because of discriminatory attitudes of medical staff towards persons with HIV/AIDS.

The Court held that an inferior standard of medical treatment resulting from discriminatory attitudes towards a particular social group does not amount to persecution for a 1951 Refugee Convention reason unless it was associated with an unwillingness or inability on the part of the relevant authorities to protect members of the group from such ill-treatment.

The Court also found that it is only in exceptional cases that stigmatisation and discrimination on the part of even a large number of individuals constituted ill-treatment which comes within the scope of the prohibition in section 5 of the Refugee Act 1996 or the protection of Art 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights and probably would require a minimum level of severity and clear evidence that the ill-treatment was so endemic and institutionalised as to raise a presumption that it was official policy or condoned by state authorities.

The applicant is not entitled to protection from deportation within the meaning of Section 60 (7) (2) of the Residence Act / Art 15 (c) of the Qualification Directive as the levels of indiscriminate violence in his home area are not characterised by a sufficient "density of danger".

This case concerned the concept of “particular social group." The CALL held that persons of the same sex can, in certain societies, be considered as a “particular social group.” The applicant, a victim of forced prostitution, was granted international protection on the basis of her belonging to the social group of women.

The House of Lords confirmed that in addition to establishing a real risk of harm, the applicant would also have to show that their state has failed to provide reasonable protection. 

The withdrawal of practical protection against deportation for subsequent applications is lawful and does not represent an infringement of the right to an effective remedy (Art 13 ECHR), if the legality of the withdrawal is examined by the Asylum Court.

The Ethiopian applicant was a victim of sexual violence and suffered from serious post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Her claim was rejected based on credibility concerns. The court ruled that the asylum authority failed to assess the facts of the case in a proper manner by applying inappropriate interview techniques and wrongly concluded that the applicant did not substantiate her well-founded fear of persecution.

This appeal challenged a negative decision of the Ministry of Interior to refuse family refugee status extension to the applicants whose son was granted refugee status in 2006.

This case concerned the consideration of expert medical evidence by asylum decision makers and the link with the assessment of credibility. The Court found that the Refugee Appeals Tribunal failed adequately to consider strong medical evidence relating to torture in assessing the overall credibility of the applicant’s refugee claim. The Court also found that it is incumbent upon the asylum decision maker to give reasons for rejecting the contents of medico-legal reports, especially those with a high probative value.