Member Login

Court seeks further evidence in challenge to refusal of international protection

By: James Cross BL

or click here to request site subscription to search and view all judgments

High Court, in judicial review proceedings concerning a Pakistani national’s application for international protection, gives an interim judgment indicating that the Court is going to give a preliminary reference to the Court of Justice of the European  Union, asks to hear further from the parties in relation to matters arising, including: the failure of the International Protection Appeals Tribunal to consider up-to-date Country of Origin information; the delays in assessing the application for international protection; the failure of the tribunal to obtain further evidence; and whether the Pakistani national was wrongfully denied the benefit of the doubt.

Asylum and immigration – judicial review – European Law - interim judgment – Court decided to make a preliminary reference - Pakistani national challenging the decision of the International Protection Appeals Tribunal refusing international protection – failed in its obligation to consider the prevailing conditions in the applicant’s country of origin at the date of the decision – delay was in breach of the European law principle of effectiveness – failure by the IPAT to obtain other evidence - wrongly denied the benefit of the doubt by IPAT - chronology – relevant statutory provisions and caselaw - cooperation requirement – impugned decision - situation in Pakistan amounts to a situation of indiscriminate violence within an international/internal armed conflict – statement of opposition – pleadings - need for prejudice - requirement to establish prejudice is not a feature of the duty of cooperation that presents under European Union law - a legal requirement for Member States to obtain and take into account COI in the assessment of an application for international protection has long been enshrined in secondary European Union law - where there was a complete breach of the duty of cooperation, does this render his right to subsidiary protection application totally ineffective - would the application of a condition of causality in requiring him to prove that the contested decision (here the refusal of subsidiary protection application) would have been different (subsidiary protection would have been granted) capable of making the exercise of the rights conferred on him “excessively difficult” within the meaning of European Law the “rights” in this instance being the duty of cooperation - whether the effecting of change to the applicable asylum protection framework operates to excuse the respondents in the within proceedings from operating an asylum scheme which would have provided a decision within a reasonable time –

Note: This is intended to be a fair and accurate report of a decision made public by a court of law. Any errors should be notified to the editor and will be dealt with accordingly.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *