NL v International Protection Appeals Tribunal & Anor (Approved) [2021] IEHC 430 (25 June 2021)

NL v International Protection Appeals Tribunal & Anor (Approved) [2021] IEHC 430 (25 June 2021)

The First Respondent failed to properly understand the applicant's case, omitted relevant accepted facts from its assessment of future risk, made factual errors regarding evidence, and did not appropriately consider the reasonable likelihood of persecution or serious harm. The decision-making process was seriously flawed and warrants quashing.

Citation
[2021] IEHC 430
Parties
Applicant: NL; First Respondent: International Protection Appeals Tribunal; Second Respondent: Minister for Justice
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
25 June 2021
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Final Judgment
Outcome
Order of Certiorari granted; First Respondent's decision quashed.
Legal Topics
International Protection, Refugee Status, Subsidiary Protection, Judicial Review, Standard of Proof, Country of Origin Information, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment
Immigration Law Human Rights Law International Protection Refugee Status Subsidiary Protection Judicial Review Standard of Proof Country of Origin Information +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 2 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

NL

Applicant

International Protection Appeals Tribunal

First Respondent

Minister for Justice

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the First Respondent erred in law and fact in its assessment of the applicant's claim for international protection
  2. 2 Whether the First Respondent failed to consider relevant evidence and country of origin information
  3. 3 Whether the First Respondent applied the correct standard of proof

Ratio Decidendi

The First Respondent failed to properly understand the applicant's case, omitted relevant accepted facts from its assessment of future risk, made factual errors regarding evidence, and did not appropriately consider the reasonable likelihood of persecution or serious harm. The decision-making process was seriously flawed and warrants quashing.

Court Disposition

Order of Certiorari granted; First Respondent's decision quashed.

Orders

  • Order of Certiorari quashing the First Respondent's decision
  • Order for 75% of the Applicant's costs as against the Respondent