The High Court has refused a Cameroonian man’s application for judicial review of a decision affirming the refusal of his asylum claim, finding that the Refugee Appeals Tribunal had made a lawful decision. The court refused leave and the requested order of certiorari after a telescoped hearing.
The applicant, identified in the judgment as F.F.M., sought to quash the Tribunal’s decision. He also sought declarations concerning the effectiveness of the available remedy and the compatibility of Irish law with an EU directive. The judgment records those as the relief sought; the court’s stated order was to refuse leave and certiorari.
The applicant said his half-brother, identified as “G”, was a criminal who repeatedly tried to recruit him into a gang. He alleged that he was assaulted, stabbed and tortured after refusing, and that police and other state officials could not protect him because they feared his brother. He also argued that the Tribunal’s findings on credibility, internal relocation and the absence of a Convention ground were unclear or inadequately reasoned.
The Tribunal had affirmed the asylum refusal. As summarised in the High Court judgment, it accepted that the applicant feared his half-brother, that the brother was a criminal and that the applicant claimed state officials could not protect him. It also considered discrepancies in the applicant’s accounts, the SPIRASI report describing scars and injuries, country information and the possibility of moving elsewhere in Cameroon. The Tribunal concluded that internal relocation could avoid the risk and that the claimed persecution was tied to refusal to join a gang, rather than a Convention ground.
The applicant’s counsel argued that the Tribunal had not properly assessed whether relocation would be reasonable in light of the applicant’s circumstances or his brother’s alleged contacts. Counsel also said family membership could constitute a particular social group and criticised the clarity of the Tribunal’s reasoning. The respondents’ counsel argued that the decision was detailed, considered the evidence and explained why parts of the claim were accepted while others were not.
Justice Eagar found that the Tribunal’s decision clearly set out which parts of the account it accepted and which it doubted, including its treatment of the discrepancies alongside the SPIRASI report. He was satisfied that the internal relocation question had been considered in sufficient detail.
On the Convention ground, the judge noted that family membership could qualify as a particular social group, but accepted the Tribunal’s reasoning that the applicant’s account described persecution for refusing to join the gang. The court also observed that the brother’s political connections might be relevant to the risk but did not, by themselves, bring the alleged persecution within a Convention ground.
The court accepted the Tribunal’s decision as lawful and refused leave and certiorari.