The High Court has quashed a decision refusing subsidiary protection to an Afghan applicant, finding that the Minister’s assessment of whether he could relocate to Kabul breached EU and domestic rules. The court did not decide whether the applicant was entitled to protection or what further orders should follow.
The judicial review concerned a refusal dated 8 October 2010 and a deportation order dated 20 October 2010. In an earlier ruling in the same proceedings, the court found a separate Article 8 assessment of the applicant’s private life deficient. This judgment addressed the subsidiary protection refusal. The judge said the parties would be heard on any further orders required.
The applicant had arrived in Ireland in May 2005 and sought asylum. He claimed the Afghan government accused him of spying for the Taliban and killing a regional governor, and said he could not seek protection from Afghan authorities because they were the alleged source of persecution. His asylum claim was rejected on credibility grounds; the appeals tribunal also found, in the alternative, no link to a Geneva Convention ground. The Minister later refused subsidiary protection, finding he had not shown a real risk of serious harm on return.
The applicant challenged, among other matters, the Minister’s conclusion that he could relocate to Kabul. The Minister argued that the protection assessment was detailed, used current country information and considered the applicant’s claimed risks, security conditions and possible relocation. The court noted that the Minister’s overall assessment found no objective basis for a fear of serious harm, making the relocation finding unnecessary. But once the decision-maker addressed relocation, the court said, it had to comply with the applicable rules.
The judgment found the Kabul assessment relied on country material about former Afghan army members, a risk factor not relevant to this applicant. It did not show that his personal circumstances or general conditions in Kabul had been considered, or explain whether it would be reasonable for him to live there. The applicant was also not given an opportunity to respond to that proposed relocation. The fact that he had earlier said relocation was not an option did not remove the Minister’s duty to consider the issue in cooperation with him, the judge said.
The respondent argued that the relocation complaint had not been properly pleaded. The judge found the pleadings and written submissions wide enough to cover it, and said the respondent had suffered no prejudice.
The court ruled that the relocation finding breached Article 8 of the Qualification Directive and the domestic regulations implementing it. It quashed the subsidiary protection refusal. The judgment did not quash the deportation order; further orders remained for the court to consider.