Y v International Protection Appeals Tribunal & Anor (Approved)

Factual and Procedural Background

The Applicant, a national of Country Z born in 1993, initially sought international protection in Ireland based on a fabricated claim that he was gay and had suffered persecution related to his sexuality. He later admitted at a section 35 interview that this initial narrative was entirely false. Subsequently, he presented a new claim alleging police and political persecution resulting from his work at an election commission in Country Z, including an incident at a restaurant involving a police officer and a gun. His asylum application was refused by the International Protection Office (IPO), and an appeal to the International Protection Appeals Tribunal (IPAT) also failed. The Applicant then initiated judicial review proceedings challenging the IPAT decision dated 9th March 2020, which upheld the refusal of refugee status and subsidiary protection. The Applicant has experienced high levels of anxiety during the proceedings, but the court found that this did not affect the legal assessment of his case.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Did the first respondent err in law and/or fact by failing to conduct a rational analysis of the Applicant’s claim that he is at risk of persecution on the basis of his political belief by rejecting his claim on the basis that he withdrew his earlier claim based on his sexuality?
2. Did the first respondent err in law and/or fact by failing to conduct a rational analysis of the Applicant’s claim and failing to give adverse reasons for making an adverse credibility finding?

Arguments of the Parties

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

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court emphasized the constrained nature of judicial review, distinguishing it from an appeal, and recognized that the evaluation of evidence and credibility is the exclusive domain of the IPAT. The court noted the Applicant’s initial asylum claim was a complete fabrication, which severely undermined his credibility. The Applicant’s revised claim of police and political persecution was inconsistent in several respects, including contradictory dates, discrepancies with hospital records, and changing details about the alleged shooting incident. The court acknowledged the Applicant’s high anxiety but found no medical evidence indicating incapacity to give evidence or memory lapses that would affect credibility. The IPAT’s reasons for rejecting the Applicant’s claims were found to be intelligible, specific, cogent, factually correct, and rational. The court rejected the Applicant’s contention that the IPAT failed to properly consider medical evidence or erred in its credibility assessment. It also rejected the applicability of certain precedents cited by the Applicant, noting the factual differences in this case. The court concluded that the IPAT acted lawfully and within its remit in dismissing the Applicant’s claims and that no procedural or substantive errors were demonstrated.

Holding and Implications

The court’s final decision was to REFUSE the application for judicial review and uphold the decision of the International Protection Appeals Tribunal dated 9th March 2020, which recommended that the Applicant should not be granted refugee status or subsidiary protection. The direct effect is that the Applicant’s challenge fails and the previous determinations remain in force. No new legal precedent was established by this decision. Costs were ordered against the Applicant, with provision for submissions if either party disagreed.