The High Court has quashed a decision dismissing an Algerian applicant’s appeal over the refusal of subsidiary protection and sent the case back to the tribunal for reconsideration by another member.
In a judgment delivered on 24 September 2018, Mr Justice Richard Humphreys found that the tribunal’s decision had not properly addressed country information indicating that armed conflict occurred across Algeria, including in the north-east. The court also said the decision did not explain its distinction between the applicant’s home area and the north-east of the country.
The applicant, born in 1990, had left Algeria in 2010 on a UK student visa and later came to Ireland. His asylum application was rejected after he failed to attend an interview. His application for subsidiary protection was refused in December 2015 on credibility grounds. The Refugee Appeals Tribunal dismissed his appeal in November 2016. He sought judicial review of that decision.
The court considered the tribunal’s application of the test for subsidiary protection where a civilian faces a serious and individual threat because of indiscriminate violence in an armed conflict. It noted that the country information before the tribunal was not consistent: a US State Department report identified armed conflict in particular areas, while UK Home Office advice described conflict across Algeria, especially in the south-central, north-east and border areas.
The judge said the tribunal’s reasoning relied on only part of the US report and described the conflict as confined to certain areas, a conclusion that contradicted information cited in the tribunal’s own decision. The tribunal also did not make clear whether it had considered the applicant’s geographical circumstances on the basis that conflict might exist throughout Algeria or in his home area. The court said it could not confidently conclude that geography had been excluded from the tribunal member’s assessment of individual risk.
The judge added that the decision did not address whether any armed conflict involved indiscriminate violence. He observed that the material appeared to provide little support for individual risk, but said the court’s role was to require the tribunal to reach conclusions on those matters.
The applicant had also raised other grounds, including complaints about the legal test and the tribunal’s treatment of the earlier decision. The first ground was no longer pursued. The court rejected the complaint that the tribunal had to assess how the earlier decision-maker handled the application, and said the applicant’s waiver of an oral hearing weakened a separate complaint about the standard of care in a paper-based hearing.
The court ordered certiorari removing the tribunal decision for the purpose of quashing it in its entirety, and remitted the matter for reconsideration by another tribunal member. It also stayed enforcement of the deportation order until the tribunal decides the remitted application. The deportation order itself was not challenged in these proceedings.