High Court of Ireland Decisions
You are here:
BAILII >>
Databases >>
High Court of Ireland Decisions >>
H.I. & anor (Albania) v The Minister for Justice and Equality & ors (Approved) [2018] IEHC 275 (19 April 2018)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/ie/cases/IEHC/2018/2018IEHC275.html
Cite as:
[2018] IEHC 275
[
New search]
[
Printable PDF version]
[
Help]
Page 1 ⇓
THE HIGH COURT
JUDICIAL REVIEW
BETWEEN
H.I. AND H.I (ALBANIA)
AND
THE MINISTER FOR JUSTICE AND EQUALITY, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL AND IRELAND
BETWEEN
A.I., B.I. AND H.I. (A MINOR SUING BY HIS FATHER AND NEXT FRIEND A.I.)
AND
THE MINISTER FOR JUSTICE AND EQUALITY, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL AND IRELAND
[2018] IEHC 275
[2011 891 J.R.]
APPLICANTS
RESPONDENTS
[2011 877 J.R.]
APPLICANTS
RESPONDENTS
JUDGMENT of Mr. Justice Richard Humphreys delivered on the 19th day of April, 2018
1. The applicants in these two related M.M.-based challenges (see M.M. v. Minister for Justice and Equality [2018] IESC 10) are an
Albanian Roma family who are members of what is referred to in the papers as the Gabel community. The parents arrived in Ireland in
August, 2005. The son, his wife and their son arrived in July, 2008. All applied for asylum and all were rejected at first instance and
again on appeal. Significant credibility findings were made on appeal before the Refugee Appeals Tribunal against the adult applicants.
Subsidiary protection was applied for and refused and deportation orders made. The applicants have since been deported.
2. I have heard helpful submissions from Mr. Michael Conlon S.C. (with Mr. Garry O’Halloran B.L.) for the applicants, and from Mr. Niall
O’Hanlon B.L. for the respondents.
Relief sought
3. While the statement of grounds challenges the asylum refusal this was disclaimed by Mr. Conlan. The substantive relief thus
consists of certiorari of the subsidiary protection and deportation decisions. The only ground in relation to the deportation orders was
that the subsidiary protection refusal was not valid.
Generalised legalistic complaints
4. Insofar as the application concerns legalistic points of a general nature, I rejected these in N.M. v. Minister for Justice and Equality
[2018] IEHC 186 [2018] 2 JIC 2710 (Unreported, High Court, 27th February, 2018) and F.M. v. Minister for Justice and Equality
(Unreported, High Court, 17th April, 2018).
Complaint that conclusions on State protection do not follow from the country material on which the Minister relies
5. Mr. Conlon submits that the Minister’s conclusions in relation to the availability of state protection do not follow from the specific
country material referred to. Of relevance is Birmingham J.’s judgment in G.O.B. v. Minister for Justice Equality and Law Reform
[2008] IEHC 229 (Unreported, High Court, 3rd June, 2008) at para. 26 that “One must appreciate that the Minister and his officials are not
coming to this issue as total novices. A great number of other cases will have raised issues about seeking assistance from the
Nigerian police. Those officials who deal with these issues must be considered to have acquired a broad familiarity with the general
perception of the Nigerian police force.” The same obviously applies mutatis mutandis to other countries. More generally, the decision
is based not just on state protection but also on the lack of credibility of the applicant’s account. The latter is an independent ground
why the present judicial review fails.
6. Mr. Conlon suggested that the son’s explanation as to why the tribunal credibility findings should not be followed were not
narratively referred to. He accepts this point is not pleaded but even if it was pleaded, he is up against the decision in G.K. v.
Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform [2002] 2 I.R. 418 [2002] I.L.R.M. 401 per Hardiman J. which means that the material
submitted has to be taken to have been considered if the decision-maker so states, even if it is not narratively discussed, unless an
applicant shows otherwise, which has not been done here.
Order
7. Accordingly each application will be dismissed.