The High Court has quashed a Refugee Appeals Tribunal decision rejecting an Albanian man’s asylum appeal, finding that interpretation difficulties contributed to a significant error in the tribunal’s assessment of his credibility.
Mr Justice Barr ruled that the tribunal should have adjourned the appeal hearing so an interpreter who understood and spoke the applicant’s Albanian dialect could be found. He directed that the matter be remitted to the tribunal for reconsideration by a different member.
The applicant said his father had been involved in a fatal road accident in Albania in March 2007 and that this led to a blood feud. He feared the deceased boy’s family would seek revenge against him. He arrived in Ireland in November 2007 and applied for asylum. His claim was rejected by the Refugee Applications Commissioner and, on appeal, by the tribunal.
At the tribunal hearing in May 2010, the applicant and interpreter spoke different Albanian dialects. According to evidence from the applicant’s solicitor, the interpreter initially said she might not be able to give a true interpretation. The tribunal refused repeated requests for an adjournment, and the hearing proceeded under protest. The applicant also told the tribunal he could not fully understand the interpreter.
A central issue in the tribunal’s rejection of the claim was why the applicant’s father had not told him the other family’s name. The tribunal understood the evidence to mean the father feared the applicant would immediately take revenge if told. The High Court accepted evidence that the applicant’s explanation was different: his father feared that, if the father were killed, the applicant would avenge his death and continue the feud.
The judge held that the interpretation problem was a causative factor in the misunderstanding and that the error was significant to the tribunal’s credibility finding. The right to understand proceedings and be understood was a basic requirement of fair procedures, the judgment said.
The court rejected or did not uphold several other challenges. It found the tribunal was entitled to draw an adverse inference from the late production of an untranslated birth certificate, and to assess the evidence on the alleged feud and the country information. It also found that an error in the brother’s date of birth concerned a peripheral issue, and upheld the tribunal’s treatment of other disputed credibility matters, including the applicant’s failure to seek asylum in France.
The order quashes the tribunal’s decision dated 14 May 2010, which had been notified to the applicant in June 2010, and requires reconsideration by a different tribunal member. The High Court did not decide the underlying asylum claim.