The High Court has allowed a Somali asylum seeker to pursue a judicial review challenge over whether the Refugee Appeals Tribunal properly assessed the particular risks facing him as a member of a minority clan.
A.M.S.J. claimed to have been born in 1950 and to belong to the Ashraf minority clan, associated with the Benadiri. He arrived in Ireland in March 2005 and sought asylum, saying that he, his wife and nine children had suffered mistreatment by members of the majority Hawiye clan and that he fled Somalia after being released from captivity.
The Refugee Applications Commissioner recommended against refugee status after an interview in August 2005, raising credibility concerns including doubts about his claimed clan membership. A.M.S.J. appealed and received an oral hearing before the Refugee Appeals Tribunal in February 2008.
The Tribunal ultimately took his account at face value but rejected the appeal on June 23, 2008. It relied on country information indicating that circumstances in Somalia had changed, with the Hawiye themselves under pressure from Darod-backed forces. It concluded there was no evidence that Ashraf people were then being specifically targeted or disproportionately affected by the conflict.
A.M.S.J. argued that the same country information showed minority clans remained particularly vulnerable, even amid generalised violence.
Ms Justice M.H. Clark held that this point crossed the substantial-grounds threshold required for leave. The court found it arguable that the Tribunal should have separately considered whether the civil war would have a differential impact on A.M.S.J. because of his minority status, potentially exposing him to persecution beyond the risks faced generally by civilians.
The court therefore granted leave on that single ground.
It refused leave on his separate argument concerning past persecution. Clark J held that refugee risk is assessed prospectively. Although past persecution may provide evidence of present danger, the Tribunal had been entitled to focus on whether the circumstances giving rise to the earlier alleged mistreatment continued at the time of its decision.