Tuesday, August 21, 2012

Burmese man not entitled to subsidiary protection

The Irish Times on Monday, 20th August 2012, reported a decision made by the High Court regarding the application for subsidiary protection by a Burmese national. The court refused to review a decision refusing subsidiary protection to the Burmese man. The decision was reached because Mr Justice Cooke determined that his story lacked credibility, and the Court did not believe that he would suffer serious harm if returned to Burma.

The man had initially applied for asylum in Ireland after leaving Burma in 2008 due to religious clashes. He is a member of the Rohingyen ethnic minority, and claimed to have lived in a refugee camp with his uncle in Bangladesh. At the camp, he was offered a job in a religious group whose practices were banned in Bangladesh, and after overhearing a conversation regarding his forced removal to Afghanistan, he fled to Ireland, where he immediately claimed asylum. His claim was unsuccessful, and he proceeded to apply for subsidiary protection. The article reports that his council cited that “this was based on the fact that members of the Rohingyen minority suffered mistreatment, discrimination and hardship, and the danger of his being sold to Afghanistan constituted a threat of ‘serious harm’.” However, his application for subsidiary protection was refused, and he brought the matter before the High Court for a review, stating that “the Minister had not made a finding that the applicant was not a member of the Rohingyen minority. He argued he was therefore obliged to consider the treatment he might receive as a Rohingya if returned to Bangladesh. He said the Minister did not consider this in his refusal to grant subsidiary protection.”

However, Mr Justice Cooke ultimately refused the review, letting the decision rest as is. He ruled that while a member of the Rohingyen minority may face “economic and social difficulties” in Bangladesh, this did not constitute “serious harm” as is necessary to obtain subsidiary protection.

Brophy Solicitors


No comments:

Post a Comment