Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel. Click here to request a subscription.
Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel.
Click here to request a subscription.
Decision of Refugee Appeals Tribunal rested only on partial assessment of credibility evidence
|
or click here to request site subscription to search and view all judgments |
Court of Appeal allows appeal of High Court refusal to quash the decision of the Refugee Appeals Tribunal on a certified point of law concerning whether an asylum decision maker is obliged to engage in a narrative discussion of country of origin information in a case where such information is not being positively rejected, on the grounds that the High Court fell into error in not quashing the decision as it rested only on a partial assessment of all the relevant evidence bearing on the applicant’s credibility.
Asylum and Immigration – appeal of High Court refusal to quash decision of the Refugee Appeals Tribunal – certified point of law – s. 5(6)(a) of the Illegal Immigrants (Trafficking) Act 2000 (as substituted by s. 34 of the Employment Permit (Amendment) Act 2014) – whether an asylum decision maker is obliged to engage in a narrative discussion of country of origin information in a case where such information is not being positively rejected – adverse credibility findings – extent to which the decision-maker was obliged to consider COI information – Article 5(1) of the European Communities (Eligibility for Protection) Regulations 2006 (S.I. No. 518 of 2006) – Article 39 of the Procedures Directive (Council Directive 2005/85/EC) – Qualification Directive (Directive 2004/83/EC) – Tribunal member was required to have regard to the documentary material supplied by the applicant in support of his case – the High Court fell into error in not quashing the decision – Tribunal’s decision rested only on a partial assessment of all the relevant evidence bearing on the applicant’s credibility – appeal allowed
Note: This is intended to be a fair and accurate report of a decision made public by a court of law. Any errors should be notified to the editor and will be dealt with accordingly.
