Documents corroborating claim for subsidiary protection were dismissed without reason

Judicial review – subsidiary protection – leave to remain – Minister failed to address the documents submitted – alleged that his family home was attacked, his family were afraid to leave home – he was threatened – his parents were attacked and beaten – section 11(b) of the Refugee Act, 1996 – assessment of credibility – Regulation 5(1)(b) of the European Communities (Eligibility for Protection) Regulations, 2006 – a weakness in a credibility finding might infect a subsidiary protection application – suggestion that documents may have been forged or fraudulently obtained – no finding on this issue – 3 options letter – Regulation 5(1)(a) of SI 518 of 2006 (“The Protection Regulations”) – decision maker is obliged to take into account all relevant facts as they relate to the country of origin - Regulation 5(1)(b) obliges the decision maker to take into account all relevant documentation presented by the applicant – Regulation 5(1)(c) requires the decision maker to take into account the personal circumstances of the applicant – Regulation 2(1) “Actors of serious harm” – duty to give reasons – fair procedures – failure to disclose why documentation’s corroborative effect was dismissed – whether the Minister is entitled to adopt the findings of the Refugee Appeals Tribunal - subsidiary protection is not a second appeal against a refusal of refugee status – Civil Liability Act, 1961 – same facts are not to be tried twice – principle not applied with regard to international protection.