A Syrian man, who was granted international protection in Greece, is challenging the recent finding that his application for asylum in Ireland is ‘inadmissible’. The decision has sparked widespread criticism from human rights groups who claim that it fails to properly consider the risks faced by refugees in Greece. The case could have far-reaching implications for the treatment of asylum-seekers across Europe. In this article, we explore the details of this controversial case and examine the wider issues surrounding the protection of refugees in Europe.
A man who sought international protection in Greece is challenging a finding that his claim for protection in Ireland was inadmissible. The Somalian man, in his 20s, alleges that he experienced violence from gangs, racism, and degrading treatment while living in a refugee camp in Greece. He claims that these circumstances caused him to leave Greece and travel to Ireland, using a false passport, where he applied for international protection on the basis of a fear of violence from the Al-Shabaab terrorist group in Somalia. However, his application was deemed inadmissible by the International Protection Office, and the International Protection Appeals Tribunal (Ipat) upheld this finding.
The man, who cannot be named due to his immigration status, argues that this decision was flawed and that he should be granted international protection in Ireland. Specifically, he claims that the Ipat erred in holding that the Minister for Justice was obliged to dismiss his international protection claim because he had already been granted protection in another Member State. He also alleges that his living conditions in Greece were not properly considered, and that there is solid evidence of a systematic failure in relation to support provided to international protection applicants in Greece.
Recently, the High Court granted permission for the man and two other applicants, who arrived in Ireland from Greece and face similar challenges, to pursue judicial reviews challenging the finding that their applications for international protection were inadmissible. In each case, the court found that the Ipat and the Minister for Justice had not opposed the court granting permission for judicial review to be sought. However, each case remains subject to challenge at a later stage of the court process.
The Somalian man’s situation is not unique, as issues surrounding the admissibility of protection applications from those arriving in Ireland from Greece have arisen frequently before in the High Court’s asylum list. The court acknowledges that decisions made by the Ipat and the Minister not to oppose leave in earlier cases do not prevent them from opposing later challenges.
Given his claims of violence and persecution, the Somalian man’s case highlights the importance of international protection measures for those fleeing dangerous situations in their home countries. However, the process for seeking such protection can be complex and difficult to navigate, particularly for those with limited resources or inadequate legal representation.
Ultimately, the High Court’s decision to allow these three applicants to pursue judicial reviews of their inadmissibility findings indicates that there may be flaws in how such cases are being handled. It remains to be seen how their cases will progress, but each case represents a potential opportunity to improve the Irish government’s handling of international protection claims and to ensure that those who arrive seeking sanctuary are able to access the support and protection that they need.
