Leave granted for judicial review where Refugee Appeals Tribunal failed to apply correct UNHCR guidelines on internal flight.
Irland (IE)
Legislator-Zusammenfassung
KI-generiertThe High Court granted leave to apply for judicial review because the Refugee Appeals Tribunal failed to consider the correct UNHCR guidelines on international protection. The applicant argued that the Tribunal's reliance on a superseded 1999 position paper regarding internal relocation was a material error of law. The court decided to grant leave based on substantial grounds showing an arguable case, reserving the final judgment on the decision's validity for the full hearing.
Legislator-Regeste
KI-generiertThe Refugee Act 1996; the Illegal Immigrants (Trafficking) Act 2000: Where a decision-maker relies on superseded UNHCR guidelines instead of current interpretative guidance, the applicant has substantial grounds to seek judicial review to quash the decision.
Schlagwörter
KI-generiertZitierte Gesetzesbestimmungen
KI-generiertVolltext
Neutral Citation Number: [2009] IEHC 56
THE HIGH COURT
JUDICIAL REVIEW
2007 483 JR
IN THE MATTER OF THE ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS (TRAFFICKING)
ACT 2000
AND IN THE MATTER OF THE REFUGEE ACT 1996 (AS AMENDED)
BETWEEN
O. G. N.
APPLICANT
AND
THE MINISTER FOR JUSTICE, EQUALITY AND LAW REFORM
AND DAVID ANDREWS SITTING AS THE REFUGEE APPEALS TRIBUNAL
RESPONDENTS
JUDGMENT of Mr. Justice Brian McGovern delivered the 5th day of February, 2009
1. This is an application for leave to apply, by way of judicial review, for an order of certiorari quashing the decision of
the second named respondent dated 19th April, 2007, affirming a recommendation of the Refugee Applications
Commissioner dated 27th January, 2007, that the applicant should not be declared a refugee. The applicant also seeks
consequential relief against the first named respondent.
2. The applicant has to establish substantial grounds before the court can grant leave.
3. Having considered the papers in this matter, and the submissions made by counsel, I have come to the view that the
applicant has established substantial grounds in his application for leave to apply for judicial review on one point, namely,
the failure of the second named respondent to have regard to the correct UNHCR guidelines on international protection.
4. In his decision, the second named respondent states that he took note of the UNHCR position paper on “relocating
internally as a reasonable alternative to seeking asylum - (the so-called ‘internal flight’ or ‘relocation principle’)” dated
February, 1999.
5. It appears that this position paper has been superseded by the UNHCR guidelines on international protection dated 23rd
July, 2003, ref. HCR/GIP/03/03/04. Those guidelines were intended to provide interpretative legal guidance for
governments, legal practitioners, decision-makers and the judiciary as well as UNHCR staff carrying out refugee status
determination in the field.
6. Since the Tribunal Member’s decision on the refugee status of the applicant appears to have been bound up with the
possibility of internal relocation, it seems to me that the applicant has met the test required in order to be granted leave,
namely, he has shown substantial grounds that he has an arguable case.
7. I make no judgment on the effect (if any) of this mistake on the decision of the second named respondent as this will
be a matter for the court to determine on the full judicial hearing.