irish Refugee Council calls for political will to back asylum reform
Sue Conlan, Chief Executive of the Irish Refugee Council, recently wrote a piece in the Irish Times on the need for political will if serious asylum reform is to be achieved in this jurisdiction. She notes that the Refugee Appeals Tribunal frequently faces allegations of bias and a lack of transparency. One of the methods proposed to address these failures of the system was the establishment of a Protection Review Tribunal (PRT) as a replacement for the Refugee Appeals Tribunal. However, Sue Conlan writes that the new tribunal will not offer the protection that its title suggests if the background legislation still allows a Tribunal chair such a large degree of discretion. In Ms Conlan’s opinion, the opportunity for change lies in the forthcoming version of the Immigration, Residence and Protection Bill 2010.
Click here to read her opinion piece in the Irish Times.
Survey results show support for asylum seekers
A report on developments on asylum and immigration in 2011 by the European Commission and a Eurobarometer survey have revealed that the a majority of Europeans believe that protection and asylum should be offered to those in need by European member states and that there should be uniformity across Europe in the rules for admitting asylum seekers. Another positive aspect of these findings was that a majority of those surveyed also believe that immigration enriches member states economically and culturally. The report stated that there are over 20 million non-EU nationals living in the EU. This is about 4% of the entire population. Other statistics in the report indicated there has been a drop in illegal immigration and an increase in the number of people seeking asylum. A recent Irish study also showed that immigrants have borne the brunt of job losses associated with the recession.
Click here to read an article from the Irish Times, and click here to read one in Journal.ie.
Two interesting judicial review applications against the Refugee Appeals Tribunal
In Nanizaya v. Minister for Justice (2012) IEHC 126 (High Court, Cross J, 23 March 2012), an applicant was refused judicial review of a decision to refuse subsidiary protection. The applicant said the minister was obliged to consider whether “there are substantial grounds for believing that the applicant would face a real risk of a serious and individual threat to his life by reason of indiscriminate violence in situations of international or internal armed conflict in his country of origin”. The applicant said however that the Minister hadn’t given consideration to the COI (Country of Origin Information) he had submitted when considering the issue of “indiscriminate violence”. The applicant made a number of other submissions which included an allegation that there was a breach of fair procedures and that the decision maker failed to consider the contents of the applicant’s SPIRASI Medical Report.
Justice Cross first considered the medical report issues. He noted that the medical report did not contain such graphic accounts of specific injuries that would give the applicant the benefit of the doubt. He further noted that the applicant’s account of his past life was rejected for credibility reasons and therefore there were no exceptional circumstances which would require the decision maker to specifically refer to the medical report. He held that the Minister declined to give the applicant the benefit of the doubt in relation to his story and therefore also declined to give him the benefit of the doubt that he was subjected to torture.
Justice Cross then considered the issue of fair procedures and duty for co-operation. He held that the Minister had produced up to date versions of country of origin information and that there was no need to inform the applicant of them as it was not ‘new information’. Therefore there was no issue of want of fair procedures. Justice Cross thereby held that the applicant could not succeed on any of his points and his application was dismissed.
In M.T.T.K v. Refugee Appeals Tribunal, the High Court quashed a decision of the tribunal to refuse refugee status and remitted the matter for rehearing. The applicant had claimed that he was a national of the Democratic Republic of Congo and was of mixed ethnicity. He claimed that he is therefore persecuted by reason of his race, political opinion and membership of a social group as he is viewed as having Tutsi or Rwandan connections.
Justice Hogan granted leave on three points. Firstly, the Refugee Appeals Tribunal had failed to consider the distinct point of the applicant’s alleged ethnicity. Secondly, the RAT had failed to consider the risk arising to the applicant by virtue of his position as a failed asylum seeker. Thirdly, the decision maker had placed much importance upon the fact that the applicant made an asylum application under South African immigration system because he was married to a South African citizen. However, Justice Hogan held the tribunal member made a number of assumptions about that country’s immigration system without reference to relevant law or policy.
The decision of the tribunal was therefore quashed and sent back to be reheard.
Click here to read a more detailed article by Brophy Solicitors Immigration Blog on the M.T.T.K. decision.