Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel. Click here to request a subscription.
|
or click here to request site subscription to search and view all judgments |
High Court refuses judicial review of the decision refusing a Nigerian national international protection, on the grounds that: the International Protection Appeals Tribunal’s adverse credibility findings were lawful; the manner in which the tribunal assessed the medical evidence was lawful; the tribunal provided clear reasons for its decision; and the tribunal properly applied the benefit of doubt principle.
Asylum and immigration – judicial review – Nigerian national challenging the decision of the International Protection Appeals Tribunal refusing her international protection – spent considerable time in UK and France but did not claim asylum – came to the state in 2012 – did not seek asylum – returned to Nigerian in 2014 – came back to the State in 2015 – did not seek international protection for two years – student visa - she was refused an EU Treaty Rights Residents Card on the basis of dependency on an Irish citizen sister -
deportation order was made - application to revoke the deportation order – a separate EU Treaty Rights application on the basis of dependency on a different sister who was a U.K. citizen was refused - sought international protection based on her alleged sexual orientation – deportation order revoked – refused international protection – evidence on oath - adverse credibility findings - alleged error in reliance on incidental matters - open to the tribunal to find against her by reference to factors undermining her credibility although they are not part of her so called “core” claim - failure to take into account relevant material - tribunal member did take into account all statements and documentation presented - in view of the many credibility problems it was very much open to the tribunal to decide against her notwithstanding such material as might be thought to be favourable - alleged error in approach to medical evidence - general rule is that an assessment of the reliability of documents cannot be separated from an assessment of the credibility of the applicant – no particular sequence for points to be decided in an international protection decision as a matter of law - alleged failure to come to a clear or reasoned decision on a core element of the claim - clear and reasoned finding specifying precisely what parts of her account are accepted - alleged error regarding approach to credibility of the sexuality claimed by applying the benefit of the doubt principle - claim of sexual orientation was not supported by documentary evidence; therefore, the benefit of the doubt issue properly arose – judicial review refused –
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.
The only e-mail alert service for all Irish judgments over the past 13 years. Click here to request a subscription.
Register Now