The High Court has refused all relief sought by Ms S in her challenge to an International Protection Appeals Tribunal (IPAT) decision on her international protection appeal.
In a judgment delivered on 19 December 2019, Mr Justice Max Barrett rejected her arguments about the tribunal’s credibility assessment, its use of country of origin information and its treatment of internal relocation.
Ms S claimed she had been raped by a man who is now a senior politician in her country of origin, and that she gave birth to a stillborn child following the rape. She also claimed the man arranged for the child’s remains to be taken from her. Those are her claims; the judgment does not make findings that the alleged events occurred.
The judgment records that IPAT’s decision of 20 May 2019 found only that Ms S’s age and religious denomination, her arrival in Ireland on a particular date and with a particular permission, and her claim for asylum in December 2015 were credible on the balance of probabilities.
Ms S argued that the tribunal’s findings on credibility, internal relocation and state protection were mutually inconsistent. The judge said the case presented the same issue as an earlier High Court decision: internal relocation had been considered in the context of general credibility, and no separate assessment of adequate state protection arose. He rejected the argument that an internal settlement test had been wrongly applied, observing that it did not fall to be applied because there was no connection to the Convention grounds.
The judge also found no basis for the challenge to the credibility findings, saying the tribunal had given a detailed and reasoned decision. On country of origin information, he said IPAT had recorded that it considered the information and documentation provided, and had specifically referred to relevant material. It was not required to set out that information in full, he said, and the decision in fact referred to it extensively.
On relocation, the judge saw no practical difference in the terminology of “relocation” and “settling”. He rejected the argument that the wording of Irish legislation was incompatible with the EU Qualification Directive, and said nothing in the tribunal’s decision indicated that the legislation had been misinterpreted or misapplied.
The judgment states that one of the five grounds, Ground 3, did not arise because the parties agreed the relevant legislation did not apply. The court refused all relief sought; the source does not specify any further order.