The High Court in Ireland has found that a Zimbabwean national has failed to establish substantial grounds upon which to seek the judicial review of a finding made against him by the International Protection Appeals Tribunal (IPAT).
The Zimbabwean national left Zimbabwe in 2008 and moved to
South Africa. He resided there for 14 years until March 2022 and then came to
Ireland.
He sought international protection on 28 March 2022. He was
interviewed, completed the application for international protection
questionnaire and attended an interview with the International Protection
Office on 20 October 2022.
He received the IPO decision on 24 January 2023 refusing
him a refugee status declaration, a subsidiary protection declaration and
permission to remain. He then lodged a notice of appeal on 10 February 2023.
However, The High Court has now found that the
International Protection Appeals Tribunal was correct in its initial decision.
As part of his appeal process the Zimbabwean national
claimed that he was in fear of ‘being found’ by the Zimbabwean Government and
the ruling Zanu PF party due to the fact that he had posted critical
anti-government comments on Twitter, although as the High Court observed, legal
submissions submitted to the IPAT make reference to the man posting
anti-government material online in one
sentence only.
The International Protection Office in its assessment of
his application rejected his claim to a fear of being found on the basis that
the applicant had also voluntarily disclosed on his LinkedIn account his
personal details, including where he lived and worked in Zimbabwe and South
Africa, that he was laid off from his job in South Africa in 2021 and that he
was now resident in Ireland.
The IPO found that this publicly disclosed information
undermined his claim that he was in fear of being found by Zanu PF or the
Zimbabwean authorities in South Africa or elsewhere. The High Court agreed.
With respect to the applicants online posts on Twitter the
High Court decision pointed to the fact that the Appellant’s Twitter account
was not in his name and “there was no evidence
offered that anyone would know or be able to detect who was the author
of the tweets he posted using a
pseudonym or that his accounts were seen or monitored by any Government
officials, Zanu PF members or otherwise.” GIST
0 comments:
Post a Comment