The High Court has quashed a decision rejecting a Georgian woman’s international protection appeal, finding that the tribunal’s assessment of her credibility was irrational and incomplete. The court remitted the appeal for reconsideration by a different tribunal member; it did not decide whether she qualifies for protection.
The judgment, delivered by Mr Justice Richard Humphreys on 21 October 2019, concerned an International Protection Appeals Tribunal decision dated 2 October 2018. The woman, identified as N.E. (Georgia), sought judicial review of that decision.
She told authorities that she had worked as a journalist in Georgia and had attracted the attention of the authorities. She said government agents beat her in or around March 2004, leaving her with serious injuries. She left Georgia in August 2008, travelled to Italy and bought a false Lithuanian passport, then entered Ireland on 16 August 2008 using it. She did not apply for asylum until May 2015, under her true identity.
Her initial protection claim was later treated as abandoned after she missed a rescheduled interview. She said she had not received notice of the change and attended on the originally scheduled date. After permission to make a new application was granted, her protection claim was refused in May 2018. The tribunal rejected her appeal following an oral hearing in July that year.
The High Court criticised the tribunal’s reliance on her uncertainty about when her newspaper was published and founded. The country information said the newspaper was published on Mondays and founded in 1992. The judge considered her answers—suggesting Monday and estimating the foundation date as around 1996 or 1998—roughly correct, especially given the time that had passed. Treating those answers as adverse credibility points was irrational, he said.
The court also found fault with the tribunal’s treatment of a newspaper staff identity card. The tribunal had discounted it because it lacked security features comparable to a passport. The judge said that was an unreasonable standard for a work identity document and noted that the card was not easily falsifiable. The tribunal had also rejected the card in light of its other adverse credibility findings, which the court found unsound.
The judge said the tribunal failed to explain adequately why the woman’s delay in claiming asylum counted against her, given that she had come forward voluntarily rather than acting in response to an external change in her immigration circumstances. He also found that the tribunal should have acknowledged evidence that she had worked for two other newspapers.
The court made an order of certiorari quashing the tribunal decision and sent the appeal back to be reconsidered by a different tribunal member. The underlying protection claim remains for the tribunal to decide.