T. (Russian Federation) v International Protection Appeals Tribunal & Anor (Approved)

Factual and Procedural Background

The Applicant, an adult male from the Caucasus region and Muslim, sought international protection in the State after arriving on a date not specified in this summary. The Applicant alleged that he was targeted by the Federal Security Service of the Russian Federation due to non-cooperation, resulting in fabricated terrorism accusations, including alleged membership of a terrorist group. He claimed that return to the Russian Federation would lead to imprisonment and likely death disguised as natural causes. The International Protection Appeals Tribunal (IPAT) found that the Applicant had a well-founded fear of persecution on grounds including religion and membership of a particular social group, but nonetheless excluded him from international protection on the basis that there were serious reasons to consider he had committed a serious non-political crime prior to arrival. The Applicant challenged this exclusion decision in judicial review proceedings.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the exclusion of the Applicant from international protection under Section 10 of the International Protection Act 2015, on grounds of having committed a serious non-political crime prior to arrival, was validly made.
2. Whether IPAT conducted the requisite individualised assessment of the nature of the alleged crime and the Applicant’s individual responsibility as required by law and relevant case law.
3. Whether reliance on documents emanating from the Russian authorities, alleged to be fabricated, was appropriate and lawful in the context of the Applicant’s exclusion.
4. Whether the burden of proof and standard of proof were properly applied by IPAT in determining exclusion.
5. The relationship between the principle of non-refoulement and the Applicant’s entitlement to international protection.

Arguments of the Parties

Applicant's Arguments

• The Applicant contended that the criminal accusations against him were fabricated by the Russian authorities as a form of persecution.
• He argued that while documents such as search warrants and criminal case resolutions were genuine, their content was false.
• The Applicant maintained that he did not commit any serious non-political crime and that IPAT failed to carry out an individualised assessment of his alleged criminal responsibility.
• The Applicant provided documents in support of his claims and cooperated with IPAT by disclosing requested information during the oral hearing.

Respondents' Arguments (IPAT and Minister for Justice)

• IPAT found that the Applicant was excluded from protection due to serious reasons to consider he committed a serious non-political crime or incited/participated in such a crime.
• IPAT relied on Russian documents, including lists of individuals involved in extremist activities, search warrants, and resolutions to initiate criminal proceedings, treating these as clear and reliable evidence.
• Counsel for IPAT suggested that the Applicant’s alleged membership in the "structure" of the terrorist organisation implied a particular rank or seniority, although this was disputed.
• IPAT argued that the Applicant’s alleged failure to disclose information earlier and lack of documentary evidence substantiating his alibi supported exclusion.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court undertook a detailed examination of the legal framework governing international protection and exclusion, particularly focusing on the requirement for an individualised assessment of alleged serious non-political crimes as mandated by the Qualification Directive and domestic law. It noted that IPAT failed to identify the specific nature of the crime(s) allegedly committed by the Applicant, which is a fundamental legal error preventing meaningful analysis of seriousness, political motivation, or individual responsibility.

The Court scrutinised the evidential basis relied upon by IPAT, comprising various documents issued by the Russian authorities. It found IPAT’s approach unsatisfactory, as it failed to distinguish between different procedural stages of the criminal process and improperly treated preliminary documents (such as search warrants and resolutions to initiate proceedings) as conclusive evidence of criminal liability.

The Court also highlighted the risk of fabricated charges by the Russian authorities, supported by Country of Origin Information and the Applicant’s credible allegations, which IPAT failed to adequately consider. This failure led to an irrational and contradictory decision, given that IPAT accepted the Applicant’s well-founded fear of persecution by the same authorities.

Furthermore, the Court found that IPAT misapplied the burden and standard of proof, wrongly attributing significance to the Applicant’s alleged late disclosure of information and lack of corroborative evidence, without shifting the burden of proof from the Respondents to the Applicant.

Regarding non-refoulement, the Court clarified that the existence of subsidiary protection or other limited protections does not relieve the State of its obligation to properly determine an international protection application.

Holding and Implications

The Court held that IPAT’s decision to exclude the Applicant from international protection was legally flawed and invalid due to failure to conduct an individualised assessment and to properly identify the nature of the alleged crime(s). The exclusion decision was quashed by an order of certiorari and the matter was remitted to a differently constituted division of IPAT for reconsideration in accordance with law.

The direct effect is that the Applicant’s exclusion is set aside, and he is entitled to a fresh determination of his application. No new precedent was established beyond reaffirming existing legal standards and procedural safeguards in exclusion cases under the International Protection Act 2015 and relevant EU law.