K.A. & Anor v Gallagher & Ors

K.A. & Anor v. Gallagher & Ors

Smart Summary (Beta)

Factual and Procedural Background

This judicial review concerns an application for an order of certiorari to quash the decision of the Refugee Appeals Tribunal affirming the recommendation of the Refugee Applications Commissioner that the Applicant, a minor born in The City to Kosovan parents, be refused refugee status. The Applicant's parents arrived in The State in 2008 and had unsuccessful asylum claims. An asylum application was made on behalf of the Applicant shortly after birth in 2010. Following a negative recommendation and a non-oral appeal process under the Refugee Act 1996 (as amended), the appeal was dismissed in 2010. The claim was based on a blood feud between the Applicant’s family and another family in Kosovo, which the Applicant’s mother feared posed a danger to the child if returned.

The Tribunal concluded that the alleged blood feud did not amount to persecution for a Convention reason, viewing the violent incident against the Applicant’s father as a criminal act rather than persecution. It found that state protection and internal relocation options were available in Kosovo. The Tribunal considered the claim on its merits, acknowledging that the Applicant’s case was to be assessed independently of the parents’ rejected claims. The Tribunal ultimately found no well-founded fear of persecution for the Applicant and dismissed the appeal.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether the Tribunal erred in law in assessing the Applicant’s claim against the definition of “refugee” under the Refugee Act 1996 (as amended).
Whether the Tribunal erred in law in assessing the Applicant’s well-founded fear of persecution based on membership of a particular social group comprising her family.
Whether the Tribunal erred in law in finding that the Applicant did not come within the Convention ground of “membership of a particular social group” by reason of family association.
Whether the Tribunal erred in law in assessing the availability of state protection for the Applicant upon return to Kosovo.
Whether the Tribunal erred in law by requiring the Applicant to demonstrate a “complete breakdown of state apparatus” to rebut the presumption of available state protection.

Arguments of the Parties

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
Gonzalez v. Minister of Citizenship and Immigration [2002] FCJ 456	Clarification that family connection alone does not establish a Convention refugee claim if the family was not targeted for a Convention reason; nexus is critical.	The Tribunal applied this case to assess whether the Applicant’s family membership constituted a particular social group; the Court found the Tribunal’s application appropriate in context.
Quijano v. Secretary of State for the Home Department [1997] Imm AR 227	Membership of a particular family can be a social group, but persecution must be connected to a Convention reason affecting family members.	The Tribunal’s approach was consistent with this precedent in requiring a causal link between persecution and Convention grounds.
K. v. Fornah [2007] 1 AC 412	Membership of a family can constitute a particular social group; a claimant need not prove that other family members were persecuted for a Convention reason.	The Court contrasted this decision with Gonzalez and Quijano, noting the Tribunal’s approach was more aligned with K. in scrutinizing causation carefully.
D.K. v. Refugee Appeals Tribunal and the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform [2006] 3 IR 368	Presumption that state protection is available unless rebutted by clear and convincing evidence; failure to seek protection is not conclusive.	The Court found the Tribunal correctly applied this principle in assessing state protection availability in Kosovo.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court carefully reviewed the factual findings of the Tribunal, which concluded that the violent incident against the Applicant’s father was a criminal act rather than persecution arising from a blood feud. The Tribunal applied UNHCR guidelines to analyze the nature and history of the alleged blood feud, finding insufficient evidence of ongoing persecution or risk to the Applicant. The Tribunal acknowledged that membership of a family can constitute a particular social group but emphasized the necessity of a causal nexus to a Convention ground for persecution.

The Court considered the precedents cited, particularly the contrasting approaches in Gonzalez, Quijano, and K., and found that the Tribunal’s approach was consistent with the careful scrutiny required by K. The Tribunal’s rejection of the blood feud as a basis for persecution was a factual assessment not challenged as irrational or unreasonable.

Regarding state protection, the Tribunal assessed country of origin information and concluded that effective state protection was available in Kosovo, notwithstanding imperfections. The Court agreed this finding was open on the evidence and not legally flawed.

Holding and Implications

The Court REFUSED the application for leave to apply for judicial review and dismissed the challenge to the Tribunal’s decision.

The direct effect is that the Applicant’s refugee status claim remains denied. No new legal precedent was established, and the decision confirms the application of established legal principles regarding the assessment of family membership as a particular social group, the necessity of a causal nexus for persecution, and the evaluation of state protection availability.

Click here to read the full judgment

Contains public sector information licensed under the Open Justice Licence v1.0.