The High Court has quashed a decision rejecting a Malawian applicant’s appeal for international protection, finding that the International Protection Appeals Tribunal had drawn a conclusion from incomplete information about risks to relatives of people with albinism.
Mr Justice Charles Meenan said the Tribunal had acknowledged it did not have the full text of a statement by Malawi’s president and was “not prepared to hazard a guess” at its meaning. But it then interpreted the statement against the applicant’s case. The judge found that the Tribunal had, in effect, done what it said it would not do.
The applicant, identified in the judgment as B.C., was born in Malawi in 1997. His twin sister had albinism. She went to a prayer meeting on 15 March 2016 and did not return. Her body was later found with some body parts removed, the judgment says. B.C. said he was attacked at home on 10 April 2016. He did not know who the attackers were, but believed they mistook him for a person with albinism because of his sister and wanted his body parts for money.
He arrived in Ireland in May 2016 and sought protection the following month. His claims were refused, and the Tribunal rejected his appeal in 2018. In an earlier judicial review, the High Court remitted the appeal for rehearing after identifying a problem with the Tribunal’s reasoning about country information on whether relatives were at risk. The Tribunal rejected the appeal again in July 2020, prompting the present judicial review.
The judge noted that the serious dangers faced in Malawi by people with the signs and characteristics of albinism were documented, but the risks, if any, to relatives without those characteristics were unclear. The Tribunal had read country information about insecurity among family members as describing empathy with the fear experienced by a relative with albinism, rather than fear of being attacked themselves. It also considered a reported presidential call for police to protect people with albinism and their families, while acknowledging it had not seen the full statement.
The court granted the orders sought under paragraphs D(1) and D(2) of the applicant’s statement of grounds, quashing the challenged decision. Meenan did not direct the Tribunal how to decide the case on reconsideration. He said it should consider the extent, if any, to which relatives without albinism face danger in Malawi.
The judge’s provisional view was that the successful applicant was entitled to costs, including reserved costs, subject to agreement. If the respondents objected, written submissions were due by 7 October 2022, with a possible mention listed for 14 October.