BL v The International Protection Appeals Tribunal & Ors (Approved) [2021] IEHC 86 (03 February 2021)

BL v The International Protection Appeals Tribunal & Ors (Approved) [2021] IEHC 86 (03 February 2021)

The First Respondent's determination was irrational as it failed to properly consider and provide reasons for dismissing new Country of Origin information, particularly the Guardian report, which was of a nature to make it significantly more likely that the applicant would qualify for international protection under s.22 of the International Protection Act 2015.

Citation
[2021] IEHC 86
Parties
Applicant: BL; First Respondent: The International Protection Appeals Tribunal; Second Respondent: The Minister for Justice; Respondent: Ireland; Respondent: The Attorney General
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
03 February 2021
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Final Judgment
Outcome
Application granted
Legal Topics
International Protection, Asylum, Judicial Review, Subsequent Application, Country of Origin Information, Refugee Status, Subsidiary Protection
Immigration Law Administrative Law International Protection Asylum Judicial Review Subsequent Application Country of Origin Information Refugee Status +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

BL

Applicant

The International Protection Appeals Tribunal

First Respondent

The Minister for Justice

Second Respondent

Ireland

Respondent

The Attorney General

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the First Respondent's determination under s.22 of the International Protection Act 2015 was irrational
  2. 2 Whether new elements or findings make it significantly more likely that the applicant will qualify for international protection
  3. 3 Whether the First Respondent failed to properly assess Country of Origin information and risks for failed asylum seekers

Ratio Decidendi

The First Respondent's determination was irrational as it failed to properly consider and provide reasons for dismissing new Country of Origin information, particularly the Guardian report, which was of a nature to make it significantly more likely that the applicant would qualify for international protection under s.22 of the International Protection Act 2015.

Court Disposition

Application granted

Orders

  • Order of Certiorari quashing the First Respondent’s recommendation
  • Order for the Applicant’s costs against the Respondent to be adjudicated upon in default of agreement