Pamela Izevbekhai - Should She Be Deported?

Harolds+

oscarBravo wrote: »

Harolds+, if you have something of value to contribute, please feel free to do so. If all you are interested in "contributing" is xenophobic bile, take it elsewhere.

Oscarbravo

I am not xenophobic and appreciate that there are foreign nationals who work hard and pay taxes in this country more so than alot of Irish.

I dont appreciate people coming over here claiming to be victims when 9/10 asylum cases are thrown out of Court - WITH REASON!

I also don't appreciate been called xenophobic. I embrace multiculturalism and appreciate the value it has in Irish society but if you come to my country looking for Asylum (like the thousands of generic Nigerians) you have to judge them all on its merit and Pamela LOST like the rest

GET OVER IT!

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Harolds+

As a taxpayer who is contributing to Izevbekhai's legal costs, I'm entirely entitled to question the veracity of her story, to tease out the many inconsistencies that appear in it, and to support the defence attorneys for the State who are doing the same. You seem invested in shouting down anyone who suggests that Izevbekhai might be capable of telling an untruth. However, I think the public deserves to know the truth, whether it be favourable to her or not.[/quote]

I am sick of hearing this rubbish while Briefs are making a mint of this story.

Send her home and lets waste the 200k + for the flight and lets deal with our own problems

oscarBravo

Harolds+ wrote: »

I am not xenophobic and appreciate that there are foreign nationals who work hard and pay taxes in this country more so than alot of Irish.

I dont appreciate people coming over here claiming to be victims when 9/10 asylum cases are thrown out of Court - WITH REASON!

I also don't appreciate been called xenophobic. I embrace multiculturalism and appreciate the value it has in Irish society but if you come to my country looking for Asylum (like the thousands of generic Nigerians) you have to judge them all on its merit and Pamela LOST like the rest

GET OVER IT!

For the avoidance of doubt: my last message to you was a moderator instruction, and as such not up for discussion. Read the charter before posting again.

Also, for further avoidance of doubt:

Harolds+ wrote: »

I am sick of hearing this rubbish while Briefs are making a mint of this story.

Send her home and lets waste the 200k + for the flight and lets deal with our own problems

This doesn't register as a valuable contribution in my book. It would barely count as a valuable contribution in a late-night pub conversation, never mind a serious discussion forum.

T runner

donegalfella wrote: »

Yes, he did. He actually had members

of the UK authorities testify that they could not guarantee his protection from a paramilitary group such as the INLA. Ward's was in many ways a far more compelling case for asylum than Izevbekhai's, in that he was seeking protection from an organized terrorist group—not some disgruntled inlaws.

Incorrect. The UK could not protect him because he was denied access to Great Britain from Northern Ireland.
If the State denies you access it is reneging its duty to protect you.

Actually, the courts have already defined these things at considerable length.

Where then?

And no, less-than-stellar country-of-origin reports don't qualify.

Sorry but I have taken my evidence from the following country of origin reports all of which most certainly do qualify and have been extensively used as evidence in asylum cases. Do you think that these should not be allowed to be referenced in the RAT or courts?

The most commonly referred to documentation (in the RAT) include country reports from the UK Immigration and Nationality Directorate, US State Department, Amnesty International and World Wide Refugee Information.

Following precedent, the courts aren't considering protections against FGM

WHAT!?! You are joking I presume? So in a case where an asylum seeker fears FGM, then state protections against FGM in the country of Origin are not to be considered?

Do you have clear and convincing proof that the Nigerian police don't protect children against kidnappers? (And please read the standards for "clear and convincing proof" before quoting more country-of-origin statistics.)

Yes I do.

Heres a defintion of the proof required:

Clear and convincing proof means that the evidence presented by a party during the trial is more highly probable to be true than not and the jury or judge has a firm belief or conviction in it. A greater degree of believability must be met than the common standard of proof in civil actions, preponderance of the evidence, which requires that the facts more likely than not prove the issue for which they are asserted.

I think I have proven on many occasion the impotency and joke that is the Nigerian police. An African poster on the site today even stated that amongst Africans Nigerian police has a specially notorious reputation.

Sorry, T runner, but "I didn't go to the police because I assumed they wouldn't do anything to help me" is not an acceptable legal defence in an asylum case. The asylum seeker is obliged under international refugee law to seek protections in his or her home country before seeking protection elsewhere.

OOps. Could you reference that Law please?

You are completely wrong. A reference to your own case:

2

0. In my view, the Tribunal Member correctly applied the test of state protection that was formulated in Canada (AG) v. Ward [1993] 2 SCR 689 as follows:-


“Like Hathaway, I prefer to formulate this aspect of the test for fear of persecution as follows: only in situations in which state protection “might reasonably have been forthcoming”, will the claimant's failure to approach the state for protection defeat his claim. Put another way, the claimant will not meet the definition of “Convention refugee” where it is objectively unreasonable for the claimant not to have sought the protection of his home authorities; otherwise, the claimant need not literally approach the state.”

Therefore, if it was reasonable for the applicant not to ask for the assistance of the police then that should not "defeat his claim".

I'm not denying that that is true. But police forces in many countries around the world draw similar criticisms. Is Nigeria in the same category as, say, Chad or Darfur? No. Nobody is pretending that the Nigerian police force is wonderful—but that country does have a functioning police force, and Izevbekhai was obliged to avail herself of it before seeking protection in Ireland.

The police force exists not the same thing as functioning.
I dont know about Darfur or Chad only that the police force in Nigeria "Does not protect its citizens from violent crime".
I know that if the RAT was transparent then Ms Izevbekhai could have used testimonies against the Nigerian police which would have also been admissable in court.

I don't believe that the issue of state protections is pivotal in all asylum cases, but it most certainly comes up in most of them. I say that you would be inclined to disagree with the courts on such occasions because your definition of "adequate state protection" is radically different from theirs.

I believe a just system should define state protections as being practiced as opposed to being in Law. Otherwise you may have a situation (the one we are discussing) where an applicant is refused asylum because of legal protections which dont actually exist.
Again that would cause me to disagree with 1 or two cases at most.

Why did you continually misrepresent my position by stating that a disagreed with all denial cases??!!!??

I'm saying that she might be an economic migrant. I don't know for sure one way or another.

I dont understand, you categorically stated today that this was "your argument all along"

You don't seem to get my point—I am not trying to have it both ways, but I think Izevbekhai possibly is.

You only think she possibly is? Very little conviction behind a viewpoint from someone who said this was your "argument all along".

When you look closely at her narrative, it is absolutely riddled with inconsistencies.

Not as many as your reasons foe disbelieving her.

If she was as wealthy as she has claimed to be, why has she been living on €19 a week in Sligo for the past four years?

Em, to save her daughters from FGM?

Where is her rich businessman husband? Why isn't he sending her and his daughters any money?

Do you know hes not? Has she a private solicitor? If the answer is Yes then she is receiving money.

Don't you think it's at least possible that Izevbekhai could be lying about her past?

Anything is possible, its equally possible that everything you have said on this thread is lies also.

The only source for this information about Izevbekhai's history is Izevbekhai herself—But the courts (whom you regard as all knowing) have accepted her story. What proof was used in the RAT?

a woman who deliberately entered the country without documentation, whose story about coming to Ireland via Amsterdam does not check out,

But this information came from a lying immigration officer. You seem to be fond of falsehoods. Is that why you see lies everywhere?

and whose narrative seems carefully crafted to have as many high-profile people as possible eating out of her hand.

Dont be a joker. All the people who are helping her know her, these people believe her. If she was lying about everything surely the kids would have let it slip someone. Again what evidence did she present to the RAT ss it believed her?

No, its more likely you were caught contradicting yourself: you discredited her for being rich mistakingly forgetting it counteracted your economic migrant theory your "argument all along". The appearance of your madcap theories now is hardly a coincidence. +1 for the entertainment value though!

Maybe we can put this reporter in the same camp as Roddy Doyle, Fine Gael, the mayor of Sligo, and the President of Ireland—all of whom seem to have accepted Izevbekhai's story at face value, without so much as asking a single critical question. But just because they have accepted her story doesn't make it true.

How on earth do you know they havent asked a critical question? Dont forget the Former High Commisioner for Human rights, Mary Robinson! Someone who would know a thing or two about this case.
And a large number of people who know her and believe her in Sligo.
Why do so many people believe her.

Lets look at the people speaking out against her:

Tom Brady, Kevin Myers, StormWatch, BNP. I think there is more integrity in the peole who believe her....Id value their judgement more to be honest

As a taxpayer who is contributing to Izevbekhai's legal costs, I'm entirely entitled to question the veracity of her story, to tease out the many inconsistencies that appear in it, and to support the defence attorneys for the State who are doing the same. You seem invested in shouting down anyone who suggests that Izevbekhai might be capable of telling an untruth. However, I think the public deserves to know the truth, whether it be favourable to her or not.

The only reason youre coming out with this now is because you have contradicted yourself.

You have stated both that Ms Izenbekhai should pay her own legal Bills because of her wealth in Nigeria.
You have also stated that you believe her an economic migrant. You cant have it both ways. So you try to discredit her story about having money, discredit her marriage, try to pour doubt on everything she says and why?
Just so you dont look like an idiot. And the bar gets lower.

T runner

WE are examining whether there are "adequate" protections against the specific threat of kidnapping with the objection of forced FGM, in Nigeria.
1. What choices does the person have when contacting the authorities?
2. What would the response of the state/police be?
3. Does the response constitute adequate state protection?

3. To answer the third question first. The Cyprian case in the UK defines adequate state protection as "a practical standard which takes proper account of the duty which the State owes to all its own nationals”. This means thats something like a gang overpowering a childs guardians and leaving before the police had time to arrive would not necessarily constitute inadequate protections, which is reasonable I think.

1. The legislation against FGM in Nigeria does not provide for safety, protection and barring orders. As the option of ringing the police and quoting one of these orders is not there,the only option available, would be to ring the police and claim there is an attempted kidnapping taking place on the particular female with the objective of a forced FGM.
For example, in domestic violence cases in Ireland, a person could get a protection order against someone and ring the Guards in expectance of an immediate response should that person turn up.

2. I believe that there is evidence that the police would not respond on different levels.

a. Firstly because of general ineffectiveness and corruption.
b. Complete lack of confidence by the citizenry in the force as a result of its impotency.
c. Cultural attitude in Nigeria means that police are less interested in violence against women.
d. Police attitudes and state protections towards FGM are not adequate.
e. Stats bear out that 1% of kidnappings make it to police records. This is not consistant with a liklihood of the police responding to a reasonable number of callouts.

(Note: Where country of origin information indicates that human rights and basic freedoms are provided for in the legislation or Constitution of the country or origin, the Tribunal does not query whether these rights are protected in practice.

The RAT believes it is not obliged to address these questions to prove adequate state protections.)

I have evidence for these premises below all from the Country of Origin Reports (can be used by RAT):



The Nigerian police are corrupt:
Any prosecutions which are brought as a result of police action will invariably be in favour of the wealthier party to the complaint.......Corruption was rampant, most often taking the form of bribes at highway checkpoints........Nigerian journalists yet again lived through an appalling year in 2006. They have had to face police brutality, arrests in certain cases for the least article that annoyed local authorities and corruption in the military, among politicians and businessmen........The attitude that torture is an accepted tool of interrogation appears to pervade all levels of the police force.”

The police are ineffectual in all aspects of policing:
“According to Nigerian police reform experts, the police force has insufficient well-trained manpower to adequately address policing needs.....The police have often been unable to meet the safety and security needs of local communities.....The police are poorly paid, poorly resourced, and are ill-equipped to deal with violent crime......
This raises serious doubts as to the ability or willingness of the police to respond to the proposed request.

The Nigerian Citizenry has no confidence in the ability of the police to protect them:
The CLEEN foundation reports show extremely low rates of crime being reported to the police and little confidence and fear of the police at all levels.

There is little public confidence in the police. Indeed, they are criticized by virtually all sectors of civil society.......The loss of public confidence in the effectiveness of the police has resulted in the emergence of private security outfits and local vigilante groups........government actors including the police, military, and elected officials continued to commit serious and persistent abuses against Nigerian citizens.


The pervading cultural attitude to women and crime against women Nigeria makes it less likely for police to respond to alleged crimes against females.
women and men who go to the police to report cases of violence in the family, including rape and physical assault, are often met with a patronizing and discouraging attitude, ‘unless it is a case of the rape of a child or the husband kills his wife’.... Rape of women and girls by both the police and security forces, and within their homes and community, is acknowledged to be endemic in Nigeria.....The Nigerian authorities at both federal and state levels have failed to address adequately gender-based violence.

Police attitudes and general state protections towards FGM are not adequate:

No prosecutions for FGM in an entire year against FGM under state laws in Osun.

that there is a law banning FGM, but the NPF (Police) does not become involved in FGM matters, as ‘it is a family thing’.........social tolerance of gender-based violence in the family is replicated among Nigeria’s law enforcement officials.....…there is little state provision to support women facing domestic violence, female genital mutilation or trafficking. Where it exists it is inadequate....

The police force are not competent enough to publish official stats:
CLEEN has extrapolated statistics which show 128 cases of kidnapping recognised by the Nigerian Police.
In one of their surveys they found that .22% of people had been kidnapped.
This means that 1% of kidnaps make the police records.


Is it reasonable for someone to assume that the police will protect their daughter from kidnap for FGM?
I dont think so.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

T runner

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

UK is a funny country especially in its dealings with NI.

From Ward case:

Here, evidence, albeit not expert opinion, was led to establish that British legislation enabled the British Government to prohibit a national from being in, or entering, Great Britain, if the national had been connected with terrorism with regard to Northern Ireland.

Still confused?

Yet again you keep trying to bring up the Fornah precedent, which was the case of a 19-year-old woman from Sierra Leone (not Nigeria) who sought protection for herself. Izevbekhai does not seek protection for herself. She seeks protection for her daughters, and in the reasonable view of the courts, the fact that two parents are united in their desire to protect their daughters from FGM is itself sufficient protection. The question then becomes whether the girls are vulnerable to forcible kidnap.

When did I bring up the Fornah precedent?

A point of interest. Where have the courts have said that it is a case whether the girls are vulnerable to forcible kidnap by the way?

Where have they said "the fact that two parents are united in their desire to protect their daughters from FGM is itself sufficient protection."?
Are you imposing your own ideas onto does of the courts?

Read the Ward case again, and see the criteria for state protections.

Yes.
Clear and convincing proof means that the evidence presented by a party during the trial is more highly probable to be true than not and the jury or judge has a firm belief or conviction in it. A greater degree of believability must be met than the common standard of proof in civil actions, preponderance of the evidence, which requires that the facts more likely than not prove the issue for which they are asserted.

I have proven this for the case of forcible kidnap in my last post.

You have quoted this: "the claimant will not meet the definition of 'Convention refugee' where it is objectively unreasonable for the claimant not to have sought the protection of his home authorities. . ." Why was it "objectively unreasonable" for Ms Izevbekhai to have sought the protection of the authorities in Nigeria?

I was actually answering this from you

The asylum seeker is obliged under international refugee law to seek protections in his or her home country before seeking protection elsewhere.

Looks like you were making it up? Can you provide a link to your "international refugee Law". Is this the UNCHR handbook you are referring to?

I have proven why it was reasonable for her not to seek police protection in a different post.

Because you can't show me a single case tried in law with which you agree that the claimant was rightfully denied the relief sought.

You are lying! Sorry but you cant deny it now.

The courts have accepted only the parts of her story that are not adjudged to be germane to her case for asylum.

They have accepted more than that. Part of what they accept you claim are lies.

He was lying? According to whom? Can you give a source, please?

Its sourced by me on this thread already.

And from what sources are the people of Sligo getting their information? More to the point, can you give me any information about this case or its background that does not originate from Ms Izevbekhai herself?

There was a phone call from her doctor to an Irish Times reporter confirming her account of events. This doctors medical report appeared in the case I believe. When the reporter called him again he had clammed up saying that he had being threatened (with his life presumably) by Nigerian Police who were aware that he was offering evidence.

That's an absurd logical fallacy. Tom Brady and Kevin Myers are "against her," therefore she must be telling the truth?

Please dont twist things. You tried to discredit her and her followers so I pointed out the people who were shouting against her. And dont forget the BNP and StormWatch for Gods sake.

(BTW Do you still share the same viewpoints as Myers on immigration now that his views have been endorsed by the BNP?)

That is not what I said. I would suggest that you read those parts of my posting again.

Sorry but you have repeatedly made reference to her wealth and now it has come back to kick you in the ass because you have claimed that you her being an economic migrant "was your argument all along".

In previous posts you made up a cock and bull, muppet story about her lying about everything (including her marriage) in a vain but entertaining effort make yourself look less ridiculous.

In the last post you start to mantain "you are not sure if shes an economic migrant or not".
So much for your "argument all along". Torpeedoed by yourself!

Why do you dislike her so much?

AlekSmart

Why do you dislike her so much?

I was pondering upon when this line would appear.

Pamella Izevbekhai`s personality,status,attractiveness or otherwise has NOTHING to do with this issue.

However it is interesting that her campaign has been a very successful one by any standards of such things.

As with many such "Campaigns" down through the years the thrust of its effectiveness is to promote its Principal in as favourable a light as possible.

This campaign has already far exceeded most recent Party Political PR stuff in its nature and extent.
It`s a well run,up to the minute campaign with some very slick management behind it.

To judge it`s effectiveness one has only to point to the Civic Reception,the Access to Leinster House and securing personal hearings from high profile political figures.

All of this stands in stark contrast to the many sad,bedraggled figures I have witnessed over the years making lone protests outside the same Parliament,often on matters of some seriousness,such as the gentleman seeking answers after the murder of his young son in Tallaght many years ago.

Sadly these folk never accquired the same ability to secure backing as Pamela Izevbekhai did so they simply bob around for a while before sinking beneath the waves.

No I don`t "Dislike" Pamela Izevbekhai...I have absolutely no feelings whatever about her personally.
Its quite simple for me really,I remain of the view that Ms Izevbekhai has been treated with some largesse by the Irish Asylum system.
She has been afforded every assistance and co-operation in making her case and this case has failed at each of those stages.

I believe that Nigeria,with a population of over 140 Million does have the ability to address those concerns put forward by Ms Izevbekhai and It would appear, so does the Irish Judicial system thus far.

The show has to end soon.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

zap27

oscarBravo wrote: »

For the avoidance of doubt: my last message to you was a moderator instruction, and as such not up for discussion. Read the charter before posting again.

Also, for further avoidance of doubt: This doesn't register as a valuable contribution in my book. It would barely count as a valuable contribution in a late-night pub conversation, never mind a serious discussion forum.

Once again, complete tool of the highest order. Get a life you sad little man. You should not be let near moderation of any board anywhere.

Instead you should maybe set up your own board somewhere entitled "Sad Gits Forum" where you can post your own charter stating if posts do not agree 100% with your own sad opinions you will be sanctioned.

oscarBravo

zap27 wrote: »

Once again, complete tool of the highest order. Get a life you sad little man. You should not be let near moderation of any board anywhere.

Instead you should maybe set up your own board somewhere entitled "Sad Gits Forum" where you can post your own charter stating if posts do not agree 100% with your own sad opinions you will be sanctioned.

Banned for a month.

Edit: on review, the ban is indefinite.

T runner

AlekSmart wrote: »

Why do you dislike her so much? I was pondering upon when this line would appear.

That was for Donegalfella actually.

Pamella Izevbekhai`s personality,status,attractiveness or otherwise has NOTHING to do with this issue.

I completely agree. And my posts have been objective, never emotive. The same can not be said about some posters on this forum.

Despicable comments of the vain:like she was so terrified after her first daughter died it took her X years to live.
What is the true state of her marriage? etc.
She is clearly bogus?

Bringing someones marriage under question with absolutely no evidence or any reasoning is a despicable and cowardly act and begs the question. Why do you dislike her?

However it is interesting that her campaign has been a very successful one by any standards of such things.
As with many such "Campaigns" down through the years the thrust of its effectiveness is to promote its Principal in as favourable a light as possible.
This campaign has already far exceeded most recent Party Political PR stuff in its nature and extent.
It`s a well run,up to the minute cam

And the campaign by BNP, Myers, Tom Brady and others and others has sought to portray here in a negative light, ahs had success and supporters also. Show some balance please.

To judge it`s effectiveness one has only to point to the Civic Reception,the Access to Leinster House and securing personal hearings from high profile political figures.

Dont forget our Law gives the Minister the power to stop the deportation.
This may result in campaigns like you are witnessing. If thats what it takes foe her to get Justice so be it.

I have my own reasons for not considering her as effective as it should have been. But that wasnt her fault. In hindsight she may have had a lot more evidence to present at the RAT.

All of this stands in stark contrast to the many sad,bedraggled figures I have witnessed over the years making lone protests outside the same Parliament,often on matters of some seriousness,such as the gentleman seeking answers after the murder of his young son in Tallaght many years ago.

Please dont disrespect these people by using them to twist your argument.

No I don`t "Dislike" Pamela Izevbekhai...I have absolutely no feelings whatever about her personally.

And thats only correct.

Its quite simple for me really,I remain of the view that Ms Izevbekhai has been treated with some largesse by the Irish Asylum system.
She has been afforded every assistance and co-operation in making her case and this case has failed at each of those stages.

I disagree. E.G She did not get any assistance from the RAT re: evidence they knew existed. This is required by the UNCHR handbook.

I believe that Nigeria,with a population of over 140 Million does have the ability to address those concerns put forward by Ms Izevbekhai and It would appear, so does the Irish Judicial system thus far.

Why dont you refute the Country of Origin evidence I have given to show the exact opposite then?

T runner

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Well that ceratinly gets you off the hook of refuting my "clear and convincing" evidence as to state protections and the police force in Nigeria. Evidence which you have refused to acknowledge even though it is admissable in the RAT.

Maybe try stopping making personal attacks on Pamela and casting dispersions on her marriage. Your "argument all along" that she was an economic migrant seems to be in tatters. Let me know when the toys are back in the pram!

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

T runner

donegalfella wrote: »

I have already addressed this. As stated by La Forest J. in Canada (Attorney General) v. Ward:

The claimant must provide clear and convincing confirmation of a state's inability to protect absent an admission by the national's state of its inability to protect that national. Except in situations of complete breakdown of the state apparatus, it should be assumed that the state is capable of protecting a claimant.

Exactly which part of the above statement is unclear? Note that it would help greatly if you could adhere to accepted legal definitions of "clear and convincing confirmation" and "complete breakdown of the state apparatus," rather than on your highly subjective impression of what those phrases should mean.

Good theyre almost back in the pram!

I have proved this under a legal definition I quoted on this site. If this definition is not legal enough for you should have said so at the time and quoted your version.

I have shown quite clearly that in reality no protections against persecution of those children actually exist.

So far you have not refuted this evidence bar the general doesn't conform to a definition which you are not willing to share with us which sounds like a fob.

Remember, according to Country of Origin reports:

Nigerian Police cannot protect the community from violent Crime.

From the Cleen statistics. Nigerian Police only respond to 1% of kidnaps.

How can the police protect a young girl from forcible kidnap if they cant protect anyone against violent crime?

Is this not "Clear and convincing proof"?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

T runner

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

The reasoning of Feeney J is fine, spot on. If I was in his position I would have concluded the same there is little else he could do. The problem is with the Tribunal members verdict or rather the RAT system that brought the member to make the verdict.

"+-The Tribunal member concluded that the appellant had not provided clear and convincing evidence of the State’s inability to protect not only because she had not sought the protection but also because she had failed to provide any other evidence that the authorities would be unwilling or unable to protect not only where both parents opposed such practice but also where it was banned in a number of States within the country."

You see, the problem here is that it is notthe tribunal members task to try and beat the applicants claim. It is his/her task to find out if the person deserves asylum.

The UNHCR handbook states that if there is evidence available relevant to the application(from country of Origin reports) the Appeals body should provide that evidence (even if it helps the applicants case). This is a sensible position. However, the RAT always takes the view that it is up to the applicant to provide all information for their side of the hearing.


If the RAT does not help an applicant by providing available information then you have the potential of two people in the exact same circumstances getting a different hearing and possibly different verdicts in the RAT.
Worst case scenario, this could mean someone being deported when they shouldnt be.

This wont be redressed in court because the court does not investigate the substantive issues of the case. The Tribunal members findings will almost always be accepted.

This seems to be an all or nothing situation. If you don't get the verdict in the RAT you ain't going to get it unless you persuade the Minister otherwise.

The RAT who makes these life changing decisions has only one member
in the hearing. The hearings are not published so a body of jurisprudence is not there to help the Lawyer for the applicant.

Inconsistencies therefore are not exposed, so if it happened that 2 people in very similar circumstances got different verdicts because they had different members or one member was in a bad mood then this would show up.

So when I see an applicant turning up in court with NO evidence to show inadequacies in Nigeria, I cant help wondering that if she had access to evidence (that existed) would it have made her case stronger?

Because the RAT is always looking for evidence only to refute the applicants case does this bias them from their role and make them more expert at turning down asylum seekers rather than judging if they deserve asylum?



I also have issue with the fact that Officials from the country of origin are allowed be referenced in these reports. There is very little positive evidence about the N. Police in any of these reports. Even the efforts at reform are disastrous and only really for show. The only pro Police evidence comes from Nigerian officials. One of them states that "Nigerian Police are able to protect against crimes of Violence". I suspect this information to be biased and not to be accurate.

However, the significance of this as a piece of evidence for the RAT and courts to have at their disposal is huge, as you are aware. It is enough it seems to cast doubt on what is obvious, in my opinion, and the Irish Courts have had to use it to refute the Nigerians Police protections argument at least once.

So I dont have a problem with Feeney Js verdict. My problem is primarily with the RAT.

T runner

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Amnesty International reports are acceptable evidence in asylum cases (same as) Country of Origin reports.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

T runner

donegalfella wrote: »

More specifically, it is their task to determine whether the claimant has substantiated his or her claim for asylum. Remember the precedent quoted in the Ward case: "The burden of proof, including a showing of well‑founded fear of persecution in all countries of which the claimant is a national, lies with appellant." If the appellant cannot establish a well-founded and objective fear of persecution, the court is bound to find against him or her. So the court is not setting out to "beat" the applicant's claim—it is more a question of judging whether or not the applicant's case has legal merit.

Im not 100% if that part of Ward is taken as precedent. The State protections part is obviously. Any onus on the state would only be for CoO info and not for Incidents the applicants claimed occured.

But why is it a problem that the lawyers retained by the claimant are required to prepare their side of the case? Isn't this how most legal cases work? Aren't these country of origin reports widely available—if you can dig them up and quote from them, why can't a trained solicitor?

I dont know. Im guessing these lawyers look at the UK home office info.
There is more substantial information on the American one which is just as admissable. It is amazing and perplexing to see that some claiments have shown no evidence for them to show lack of protections etc. in a case.
I dont understand it.

And yet the first sentence of the judgement I quoted above reads in part: "Mr. Justice Herbert went on to conclude that the Refugee Appeals Tribunal had misdirected itself in law in concluding wrongly. . ." In other words, he found that the Tribunal erred in law in reaching certain conclusions. This shows that the High Court can and will overrule the Tribunal if it believes the Tribunal has erred.

He still found against the claiment though. Even that case I mentioned previously where the tribunal member got the state and law wrong didnt warrant quashing and anothe RAT verdict.

Well, I don't have the statistics on this, but you are essentially arguing that the only authority that ever overrules the RAT is the Minister for Justice. Are you saying that the High Court never finds against the RAT? And if so, do you have proof of this?

No proof, i just havent seen it yet. The court cant go into the merits of the case in any detail so the RAT must really have to F it up before its quashed. Were talking arriving pissed, getting the Claiment in a headlock type of thing.

Any legal representative of an asylum applicant may access the above Archive online and/or consult the elecronic library at the Tribunal offices. This would seem to conflict with your claim that a body of jurisprudence is not available to asylum claimants' legal counsel.

I will register and see what is actually available. Hopefully its extensive, it will be of interest.

Again, I don't think you're understanding the role of the Tribunal. It exists not to refute the applicant's case, but to determine whether or not the applicant can substantiate his or her application by establishing that a well-founded, objective fear of persecution exists. There's a difference there.

Yes, but if thats the case the RAT should make available evidence that both
for and against the claim. At the moment the RAT is only finding evidence to refute the claim which is a biased position.

Those two sentences would surely seem to contradict one another?

I mean the only positive evidence for the police seems to come from official Nigerian sources.

Fair enough—but if there is overwhelming evidence to the contrary, the courts would have to consider that too, yes?

In one case the RAT member was accused of using selective evidence to show State protections in this case were adequate.
The Justice said this was in line with the general Tone of the UK CoO report.
I honestly dont think the court has much scope to overrule in these situations. The Nigerian Official sources have their say and have balanced up their side of the argument in the CoO and the Justice cant therefore overrule the Member.

Well my position on this would be that the High Court can overrule the RAT when necessary, and even when upholding RAT decisions in judicial reviews it has to rebut the claimants' allegations of legal error by explaining why, in its view, the RAT reached the correct decision. So the system still seems robust to me.

The legal error can be overruled. A mistake in assessing adequacy of state protections couldnt really be touched in most circumstances.
Again I havent seen an overruling yet where the ruling of the RAT was quashed.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

T runner

donegalfella wrote: »

This archive may be the 20 cases per year EF referred to.
There was a question of the hearings not being recorded by tape only by notes. Its a pity they are not published and I believe it does hinder a lawyers ability and does stop a body of jurisprudence building up if only lawyers for the case have access.

Well, it is up to the counsel for the asylum seeker to argue for the claim, and up to the Tribunal to question the claimant's story in other to determine whether he or she is a deserving applicant. That is how judgements are arrived at.

(It is defined as an inquisatorial hearing and not confrontational).

Yes, but all the evidence produced by the RAT is always against the defendant. If the member has information to support the applicants name surely he should also admit this also in the name of a just outcome.

To be honest, I don't see Nigerian officials featuring heavily in the country of origin report on that country. It seems to be citing mostly independent sources.

I havent seen any positive references to State or Plce Protections other than from official Nigerian sources. These should not be regarded as a reliable source for obvious reasons.

Well, if the High Court feels that the Tribunal has erred in assessing the questions of state protections, surely it can redress that error, too? In court today, Izevbekhai had evidence introduced from a doctor and from Amnesty International—surely she is asking the High Court to consider this additional evidence because she doesn't believe certain aspects of her case were adequately supported before?

My point is that having a line like "the police can protect civilians from violent crime" in a CoO report is always a trump card. That alone is sufficient to refute a claim that the Police could not protect from kidnap.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

AlekSmart

No matter what the Outcome it is refreshing to see the actual legal process now advancing.

Reading the reports on the proceedings does bring a degree of clarity to things which some (on both sides) attempt to sideline.

For example Dr Fiona Hardy`s evidence,although supportive and doubtless accurate surely represents a professional "point of view" introduced at a late stage rather than compelling new evidence.

I am also somewhat surprised at the revelations regarding the death of Ms Izevbekhai`s infant daughter Elizabeth as it appears to indicate a difference of medical opinion as to the circumstances surrounding the cause of death.

It may have been preferable to seek depositions from the Medical Staff involved in Elizabeth`s treatment in preference to Dr Hardy`s general opinions on FGM.

I am also illuminated by the admission into the process of "E-Mails from Irish Journalists who had backed up the family`s claims"

What exactly is the process for using this as evidential ?

Is this in any way associated with the Roddy Doyle letter ?

The entire system stands or falls on its considerration of FACTUAL evidence put before it.

Noteworthy and well intentioned as it may be,the advance of Opinions remains of limited use in any Legal deliberations otherwise we have a Bar-room court situation with EVERYBODY an expert on FGM and other Nigerian social customs.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.