The High Court has quashed a decision refusing international protection to an Algerian man after finding that important documentary evidence was not properly considered when his credibility was rejected.
A.M., an Algerian national who arrived in Ireland in May 2022, said he had worked for semi-state company Tonic Industries and became involved in a dispute over wages and workers' rights. He claimed that after taking legal proceedings against the company, he and members of his family were threatened and attacked.
The International Protection Office accepted that A.M. had worked for the company and brought litigation against it, but rejected his account of subsequent intimidation. The International Protection Appeals Tribunal upheld the refusal of refugee and subsidiary protection on July 23, 2024.
Ms Justice Nessa Cahill found three significant problems with that decision.
Most importantly, the Tribunal failed to substantively assess a translated document which A.M. said he had been given as part of an attempt to pressure him into withdrawing his court case. The document referred to the same case number as the Algerian judgment. Cahill J said that, if authentic, it could materially support his account of intimidation.
The Tribunal also rejected as implausible A.M.'s claim that he continued working despite not being paid, without addressing Algerian court documents which appeared to support continuing wage disputes and employment during that period.
The court further found that the Tribunal had not addressed country information concerning repression and harassment of workers and trade unionists in Algeria. Instead, parts of its credibility assessment relied on assumptions about what was plausible without engaging with that context.
Cahill J also identified an unsupported finding that A.M. had ultimately been paid by the company, noting that she had seen no evidence for it.
The judge held that the failure to consider the withdrawal document was sufficiently central to undermine the Tribunal's decision. She ordered that it be quashed and that the protection appeal be reconsidered afresh by a different Tribunal member.