- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
ON v Refugee Appeals Tribunal & ors
Factual and Procedural Background
This opinion concerns two judicial review applications brought by applicants challenging decisions of the Refugee Appeals Tribunal and related authorities regarding their claims for international protection under the Refugee Act 1996 (as amended) and the Illegal Immigrants (Trafficking) Act 2000 (as amended). The first applicant, referred to as Applicant One, is a Zimbabwean national who arrived in the jurisdiction under a false passport and applied for refugee status, which was refused at initial and appeal stages. The second applicant, Applicant Two, is from Western Sahara and applied for refugee status and subsequently subsidiary protection after claims of persecution and imprisonment in her home country; both applications were refused and appeals dismissed. Both applicants sought judicial review on the grounds that the standard of proof applied by the first respondent in their cases was incorrect. The court granted leave to apply for judicial review in both cases, focusing on the legal issue of the appropriate standard of proof to be applied in fact-finding and risk assessment in asylum and subsidiary protection claims.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the standard of proof applied by the first respondent in assessing fact-finding and the acceptance of the applicant’s history was correct.
- Whether the standard of proof applicable to fact-finding is the same as that applied in assessing the real risk of persecution or serious harm, specifically whether a "reasonable degree of likelihood" (approximately 30%) standard applies uniformly.
- The appropriate standard of proof to apply in applications for refugee status and subsidiary protection, and whether the burden and standard of proof differ between these types of protection.
Arguments of the Parties
Applicants' Arguments
- The applicants argued that the standard of proof for both fact-finding and assessment of real risk should be a "reasonable degree of likelihood," approximately 30%, rather than the higher civil standard of balance of probabilities.
- They relied on various authorities, including UK and international case law, to support the proposition of a lower, uniform standard of proof for all aspects of asylum claims.
- The applicants contended that a uniform standard would ensure consistency and fairness in the evaluation of asylum and subsidiary protection claims.
Respondents' Arguments
- The respondents contended that two different standards apply: the balance of probabilities standard applies to fact-finding and acceptance of the applicant’s history, while the "reasonable degree of likelihood" standard applies to the assessment of future real risk.
- They argued that some facts discounted in the fact-finding stage might still be relevant in assessing future risk depending on the impact of credibility findings.
- The respondents emphasized that domestic law and EU directives require adherence to principles of equivalence and effectiveness, and that EU case law mandates a two-stage process of fact-finding followed by legal appraisal.
- They challenged the persuasive value of UK authorities advocating a unitary lower standard, highlighting differences in legal frameworks and the impact of recent EU jurisprudence.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| R (Sivakumaran) v. Secretary of State for the Home Department [1988] AC 958 | Introduced the "reasonable degree of likelihood" standard for assessing risk of persecution. | Considered as part of applicants' argument for a lower standard of proof applicable to both past facts and future risk. |
| I.N.S. v. Cardozo-Fonseca [1987] 407 US 407 | Referenced in support of the reasonable likelihood standard. | Used to support applicants' position on the standard of proof. |
| The Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v. Rajalingam [1999] F.C.A. 719 | Set out principles regarding the standard of proof in refugee claims, including a lower standard for assessing risk. | Applicants relied on this case; respondents noted some principles were not accepted by Australian courts. |
| Karanakaran v. Secretary of State for the Home Department [2000] 3 All ER 449 | Discussed standards of proof and fact-finding in asylum cases. | Applicants cited this UK authority advocating a lower standard; respondents noted UK jurisprudence's complexity and subsequent EU case law. |
| Da Silveira v. Refugee Appeals Tribunal [2004] IEHC 436 | Addressed standard of proof for future risk assessment. | Considered by the court as dealing primarily with future risk, not past facts or credibility standards. |
| M.A.M.A. v. Refugee Appeals Tribunal [2011] | Clarified the obligation to consider future risk even if some past facts are disbelieved. | Confirmed that lack of credibility on some past facts does not preclude assessing future risk; did not establish standard for past fact credibility. |
| V.Z. v. Minister for Justice and Others [2002] 2 IR 135 | Referenced UNHCR guidelines on burden and standard of proof. | Cited by respondents to support the balance of probabilities coupled with benefit of doubt approach. |
| M.M. v. Minister for Justice (Case C-277/11) | EU Court of Justice ruling establishing a two-stage process for assessing asylum claims: fact-finding and legal appraisal. | Used by respondents to argue for a two-stage process and to caution against applying UK unitary approach. |
| Danqua v. Minister for Justice and Equality (Case C-429/15) | Reinforced principles of equivalence and effectiveness in asylum procedures. | Supported respondents’ argument for adherence to EU procedural standards. |
| R.C. v. Sweden (European Court of Human Rights, 2010) | Emphasized the need for benefit of the doubt in assessing asylum seekers’ credibility but requiring satisfactory explanations for discrepancies. | Referenced to support the importance of credibility assessment and benefit of doubt. |
| HJ (Iran) v. Secretary of State [2010] UKSC | Discussed need for careful fact-sensitive analysis and that balance of probabilities may be inappropriate in life-threatening cases. | Applicants relied on this case for rigorous examination; respondents noted divergent views within the judgment. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court undertook a detailed review of domestic, EU, and international jurisprudence and guidance on the standard of proof applicable to asylum and subsidiary protection claims. It acknowledged the absence of a universally accepted standard within the EU or internationally. The court identified that the EU Directive 2004/83/EC and related case law, particularly the M.M. decision, establish a two-stage process: first, establishing factual circumstances; second, the legal appraisal of those facts to determine eligibility for protection.
The court noted that while the applicants advocated for a uniform "reasonable degree of likelihood" standard (around 30%) for both fact-finding and risk assessment, the respondents maintained that the balance of probabilities applies to fact-finding, supplemented by the benefit of the doubt where appropriate, and the lower standard applies only to assessing future risk. The court found this distinction consistent with EU law principles of equivalence and effectiveness and with domestic civil standards of proof.
In examining relevant Irish case law, the court found that judgments addressing the standard of proof for future risk did not establish a lower standard for assessing past facts or credibility. It also considered authorities from other jurisdictions, including Canada and the UK, but found no binding or universally accepted standard that mandates a lower threshold for fact-finding. The court emphasized that the burden of proof lies with the applicant, but the benefit of the doubt must be afforded when the applicant’s account is coherent and plausible.
Ultimately, the court concluded that the appropriate standard in the jurisdiction is the balance of probabilities for fact-finding and credibility assessments, combined with the benefit of the doubt where justified, and that this standard safeguards the principles required by EU law and international obligations.
Holding and Implications
The court held that the correct standard of proof to be applied by the Refugee Appeals Tribunal and related decision-makers in assessing the facts and credibility of asylum and subsidiary protection applicants is the balance of probabilities, coupled with the benefit of the doubt where appropriate. The lower standard of "reasonable degree of likelihood" applies only to the assessment of the real risk of future persecution or serious harm.
This decision clarifies that the standard of proof for evaluating an applicant’s history and credibility is not the same as that for assessing future risk, thereby rejecting the applicants’ submission for a uniform lower standard. The ruling aligns domestic procedures with EU law principles and maintains the civil standard of proof for fact-finding in asylum claims. No new precedent was set beyond confirming the application of existing principles, and the direct effect is to uphold the decisions of the first respondents applying the balance of probabilities standard.
Alert