THE HIGH COURT JUDICIAL REVIEW  IEHC 390 [2022/1041 JR] BETWEEN T.A. APPLICANT AND THE INTERNATIONAL PROTECTION OFFICE, THE INTERNATIONAL PROTECTION APPEALS TRIBUNAL, THE MINISTER FOR JUSTICE AND EQUALITY, IRELAND AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
The judgment delivered by Mr. Justice Mark Heslin on July 7th, 2023, pertains to a case involving an applicant seeking international protection. The applicant claimed that his life was at risk due to conflicts with his uncle, who was involved in criminal activities. The applicant applied for judicial review of the decision made by the International Protection Office (IPO) rejecting his claim.
The judgment explains that the IPO accepted certain material facts, such as the applicant’s nationality, his abduction by his uncle in 2014, and his uncle targeting him based on a belief that the applicant reported him to the police for drug offenses. However, the IPO did not find sufficient evidence to support the claim that the uncle was behind a bakery attack on the applicant in 2020.
The applicant argued that the IPO’s decision was irrational and failed to consider relevant evidence. However, the court found that the IPO had sufficient evidence to reach its decision and that the applicant had not demonstrated any fundamental flaws in the decision-making process.
The judgment also emphasized that the court’s role in judicial review is not to reconsider the merits of the decision but to ensure that the decision was lawfully made. It concluded that the applicant had not met the burden of proof required to establish irrationality or failure to consider relevant evidence.
The central issue in the case concerned the IPO’s finding that the applicant faced a real risk of persecution and serious harm if returned to his home country, Algeria. The applicant contended that this finding contradicted the IPO’s later finding that state protection was available to him in Algeria. However, the court did not find this discrepancy as a basis for judicial review and highlighted that the applicant had alternative remedies available, such as appealing to the International Protection Appeals Tribunal (IPAT).
In summary, the judgment concluded that the applicant had not demonstrated any substantial flaws in the IPO’s decision-making process and that he had more appropriate avenues for pursuing his case, such as an appeal to the IPAT. The court did not find sufficient grounds to grant the requested certiorari relief and dismissed the applicant’s judicial review application.
For The Full Case :