Leave granted to DRC national to judicially review asylum and deportation decisions

Judicial review – leave hearing - national from the Democratic Republic of Congo challenging decisions of the Minister for Justice to refuse her re-admittance into the asylum process and refusing to revoke the deportation order made against her – refused asylum on credibility grounds – refused subsidiary protection and leave to remain – deportation order issued - publication of a report on the dangers of refoulement of failed asylum seekers to the Democratic Republic of Congo – she worked as secretary to an admiral in the Congolese armed forces – applications to be re-admitted into the asylum process and to revoke the deportation order was refused – interlocutory injunction refused – she argued that the determination to refuse the applicant refugee status was fundamentally flawed in that it was based on outdated and inaccurate country of origin information – she provided new reports to the effect that she was indeed a refugee and that if she were returned to the DRC she would be in danger - application to revoke the deportation order based on changed circumstances - there had been a deterioration in the DRC and a deterioration in the treatment faced by failed asylum seekers - DRC was extremely dangerous especially in relation to refoulement of Congolese asylum seekers - applicable legal threshold to grant to judicial review application to be readmitted into asylum process – applicable legal threshold to grant leave to judicial review refusal to revoke deportation order where Minister is on notice – criticisms of the country of origin information relied on by the Minister - obligation to give reasons - proportionality in judicial review in Ireland – argued that the “weighing exercise” carried out by the Minister came to the wrong conclusion, and placed too much weight on selected elements of the UKBA report and too little weight on the Unsafe Return report - contended that she has a constitutional right to have the decision made, affecting her right to freedom from torture, inhumane or degrading treatment, examined for proportionality and reasonableness by an independent court or tribunal - whether the evidence put forward was “cogent, authoritative and objective” that must surely be for the substantive hearing - only question before the court was whether substantial/arguable grounds exist to argue that the decision should be quashed - not whether it should be quashed - representations/country information should not be considered in depth at the leave stage - circumstances in which a High Court decision might not be followed - level of the new evidence which an applicant must adduce in order to be readmitted into the asylum process - case law established that the country of origin information must be “cogent, authoritative and objective” – argued that the Minister erred in law and/or in fact in concluding that the information and documentation furnished in his application to be readmitted to the asylum process did not amount to ‘new evidence’ – provisions governing readmittance into the asylum process - satisfied that it is arguable that the report was a significant piece of “new evidence” - argued that the Minister erred in law and in fact by relying on findings of lack of credibility on the part of the applicant in her asylum claim which were irrelevant to her application to be readmitted - erred in law and/or in fact in apparently preferring certain country of origin information relating to treatment of returned failed asylum seekers to DR Congo despite that information reciting that it was based on only limited information over the more up to date information she furnished – Minister erred in law in failing to provide any reason or rationale for such apparent preference and further erred by utilising information that was not up to date at the time of the making of the decision - erred in law and/or in fact in relying on the understanding that ‘when the Irish authorities make arrangements to repatriate persons to DR Congo, no mention is made of them being failed asylum seekers’ - travelling on a ‘travel document’ issued by the Irish authorities - arrive on a “Frontex Flight - erred in law and/or in fact in apparently concluding that failed asylum seekers per se could not comprise a ‘particular social group’ for the purposes of refugee law - right to be heard – argued she should have been given the opportunity to comment on any new evidence on which the decision maker intended to rely - the authorities state that the Minister is not obliged to engage in correspondence with the applicant, once his submissions have been submitted to the Minister - erred in law and/or in fact in apparently concluding that the information provided by the applicant was not ‘cogent, authoritative and objective - erred in law in concluding that the UN Committee against Torture case of Bakatu-Bia could not be considered as evidence and further erred in failing to have regard to the matters set out in the decision - decision maker was put on inquiry as to the fate which would befall on her return to the DRC as a failed asylum seeker from Europe but that the documentation and information sourced did not properly address the matters on which the Minister was put on inquiry - erred in law in apparently adopting the conclusions of the initial rejection of the applicant’s claim - entitled to a separate and complete assessment of her separate applications - erred in law in failing to consider the substance of the information furnished which had not been previously considered by the asylum authorities - no rational basis upon which it could have been rationally concluded that the applicant’s ‘life or freedom would not be threatened were she to be expelled from the State and returned to the DRC’ – whether the Minister could be perceived as being biased having regard to her role earlier in the proceedings.