M.T.T.K (Democratic Republic of Congo) v Refugee Appeals Tribunal & Ors [2012 IEHC 155]
This case concerned an application for judicial review in respect of a decision by the Refugee Appeals Tribunal, affirming a recommendation by ORAC, not to grant the applicant refugee status.
The applicant claims to be a national of the Democratic Republic of Congo. He applied for asylum in February 2006 based on his fear of persecution arising from his race, political opinion and membership of a social group. He alleged that he is of mixed ethnicity and in the DRC he is viewed as Tutsi or as having Rwandan connections. The applicant claimed he was jailed and tortured by the DRC authorities in 2004 for purportedly supporting the Rwandan Government. The applicant escaped to Rwanda but was arrested for having no documents and was detained until January 2006. He then travelled to Ireland where the ORAC refused him refugee status in December 2006 and the RAT rejected his appeal as they did not believe his narrative.
Hogan J granted leave on a number of grounds that centred around three issues:
(1) Risk of persecution based on ethnic origin or perceived connections to Rwanda.
It was clear to the tribunal member that the applicants alleged ethnicity was a distinct and separate point warranting individual consideration. The tribunal member failed to weigh the merits of the claim and the applicant’s lack of credibility did not justify this failure. An ambiguity does not suffice as evidence of acceptance of ethnicity or Rwandan affiliation. However, the court went onto conclude that in any case this matter ought to have been considered by the RAT and their failure to do so meant the decision could not stand.
(2) The risk arising to the applicant by virtue of his position as a failed asylum seeker.
The High Court held that the RAT failed to consider this issue. It was expressed in previous case law that failed asylum seekers are not members of a social group and so particularly cogent evidence is required to quash an RAT decision on this issue. The court considered a number of documents in examining the credibility of the applicant’s evidence. Although some documents appeared one-sided and unsubstantiated, a UNHCR article did state that failed asylum seekers are at risk upon their return to DRC by virtue of their ethnicity. The failure of the RAT to adjudicate on the ethnicity/Rwandan affiliation of the applicant in declining to examine the consequences of being returned to the DRC as a failed asylum seeker was of such a nature to warrant setting aside the decision in this case.
(3) Benefit the applicant is entitled to derive from the South African immigration system by virtue of his marriage to a citizen of that country
The High Court agreed wit the tribunal that it is questionable that the applicant never attempted to seek asylum in South Africa, given his marital connections to that country. The court held that the tribunal member went far beyond the question of the applicant’s credibility when he made a number of assumptions about South African immigration law, without supporting these conclusions by reference to the law or policy of South Africa. The applicant may be entitled to such benefit but there is nothing in this decision to support this proposition nor was it put to the applicant. The court therefore cannot presume to rely on this decision and so the conclusion was unreasonably made.
On the basis of these three grounds the High Court granted the applicant an order of certiorari quashing the decision of the RAT, remitted the matter for rehearing and to hear submissions in relation to an injunction restraining the respondent from denying the applicant refugee status and deporting him.