The High Court has granted a South African family leave to seek judicial review of a decision refusing them international protection and of the designation of South Africa as a safe country of origin.
Ms Justice Tara Burns delivered the judgment on 25 November 2020. The applicants are a married couple and their daughter, who was 13 at the time of the protection appeal. They arrived in Ireland in September 2018 and applied for protection the following day, saying they feared persecution or serious harm because of their race and their history of persecution and crime victimisation.
The International Protection Appeals Tribunal considered their appeal on written papers, without an oral hearing. It accepted the family’s general credibility and the account that they had been victims of several crimes, including a home robbery, and that police had responded ineffectively. It also accepted that their fears of robbery, murder and possible abduction of their daughter could amount to persecution, and that their claim was connected to their race because they were perceived as wealthy and socially prominent.
The tribunal nevertheless refused protection, concluding that state protection was available in South Africa after considering country-of-origin information. The family challenged that assessment, including the tribunal’s analysis of the country information.
Justice Burns found substantial grounds for the family to challenge the protection refusal on grounds including alleged illegality, irrationality, failure to consider relevant matters and failure to evaluate the evidence properly. She granted leave to seek judicial review on those grounds. This is permission to bring the challenge; the court did not decide whether the refusal was unlawful or whether the family qualifies for protection.
The family also argued that the Minister’s designation of South Africa as a safe country of origin was unlawful. The judge found their challenge arguable, noting the significance of the designation to their case, earlier permission granted in a separate challenge, and country information relating to South Africa. Leave was granted to pursue that challenge as well. The court did not determine the designation’s lawfulness.
However, the judge refused leave to argue that sections 33 and 72 of the International Protection Act 2015 were ultra vires or incompatible with Ireland’s obligations under the original EU Procedures Directive or the Common European Asylum System. She concluded that the family had not established an arguable case on that issue, explaining that Ireland remained bound by the earlier directives despite not adopting their later recasts.
The court reserved the question of costs and adjourned the proceedings to 11 January 2021 for the respondents to deliver opposition papers.