JR v The International Protection Appeals Tribunal (Algeria) (Approved)

Factual and Procedural Background

The Applicant, an Algerian national born in the mid-1990s, arrived in Ireland in mid-2021 after traveling through the UK, France, and Spain. He sought international protection based on threats and harm allegedly inflicted by his uncle, involving a family dispute over property. The Applicant claimed his uncle threatened to kill him and his parents, physically assaulted his father, and that the police in Algeria failed to provide protection. He also alleged a historic sexual assault by the uncle when he was nine years old, first disclosed during a June 2022 interview. The initial application for international protection was refused by the International Protection Office ("IPO"), and this decision was affirmed by the International Protection Appeals Tribunal ("the Tribunal"). The Applicant challenged the Tribunal's decision, seeking to quash the refusal of protection.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the Tribunal's decision was irrational or failed to consider material facts or considered irrelevant matters.
2. Whether the Tribunal unfairly rejected the Applicant's claim of historic rape.
3. Whether the Tribunal erred in failing to refer the Applicant to a medical doctor.
4. Whether the Tribunal failed to consider submissions dated August 2022.

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 found that the Tribunal's decision was fundamentally flawed due to a lack of clear factual findings on key issues, particularly whether the Applicant or his family were threatened by his uncle and what was reported to the police. The Tribunal conflated distinct claims of threats, sexual assault, and police response without clarifying the facts. The use of the term "alleged" threats without deciding their truth was criticized as inappropriate for a decision maker. The Tribunal failed to engage with the presumption under section 28(6) of the 2015 Act, which should apply if threats of serious harm are accepted.

Regarding the sexual assault claim, the Tribunal rejected it based on lack of corroboration and the Applicant's failure to mention it in his questionnaire. The court noted that corroboration is rarely available for historic sexual offences and that non-disclosure in a questionnaire, while relevant, is not determinative. The Tribunal's interchangeable use of "rape" and "sexual abuse" added confusion and weakened the reasoning. The court acknowledged the Tribunal's discretion to reject the claim but found its stated reasons unstable and insufficiently detailed.

The Tribunal also negatively assessed the Applicant's credibility based on an unsubstantiated claim that his uncle was affiliated with a terrorist organisation, without adequate explanation. The court emphasized the need for clear findings on threats and police protection to properly apply the legal framework.

On the issue of submissions dated August 2022, the court found no evidence that such submissions were presented to the Tribunal or the court, rejecting the Applicant's claim that they were ignored. The absence of these documents prevented any consideration of this argument.

Holding and Implications

The court QUASHED the Tribunal's decision and ordered that the Respondent reconsider the application for international protection. The Respondent must make clear factual findings on the Applicant's claims, including threats by the uncle, the police response, and the sexual assault allegation, and apply the relevant statutory presumption under section 28(6) of the 2015 Act where appropriate.

The decision directly affects the parties by requiring a reconsideration of the protection claim with clearer reasoning and findings. No new legal precedent was established by this ruling.