Report slams ‘adversarial’ asylum process

Ireland’s high rate of asylum refusal could be linked to the “highly adversarial process” faced by applicants, according to a report being launched today.

The Irish Refugee Council has found there is “considerable potential for error” in the way many applications are dealt with, inconsistencies in how medical and legal files are dealt with, and a failure to provide reasons for not accepting or questioning the authenticity of documentation, sometimes linked to issues such as rape claims.

The council’s CEO, Sue Conlan, one of the authors of the report said that there needed to be greater transparency in the application process as many “who appear to have legitimate claims appear not to be receiving a fair examination of their claim”.

The report covers 86 files and found “a highly subjective analysis” on behalf of decision makers, while some lines of inquiry were ignored.

In her foreword to the report, Siobhán Mullally, a professor of law at UCC, said: “The duty to evaluate and to ascertain all relevant information is a shared one between the applicant and the adjudicator.

“The asylum adjudication process is to be inquisitorial, not adversarial. In practice, however, as this report reveals, asylum adjudication remains a highly adversarial process.”

She said “negative credibility assessments” were the main reasons why most asylum claims failed.

“A matter of particular concern in Ireland has been the low recognition rates for asylum applications, significantly lower than the European average.

“In 2011, only 5% of the asylum applications determined either by the Office of the Refugee Applications Commissioner or the Refugee Appeals Tribunal were successful. The average recognition rate across the EU in 2011 was 11.6%.”

Just last week during a visit here the UN noted Nations High Commissi-oner on Refugees, António Guterres, last week said Ireland must tackle the “backlog” of asylum seekers living in direct provision.

Mr Guterres said Ireland’s rate of recognition of those claiming asylum was the fourth lowest in the EU and the that Government had recognised this, but that Ireland’s existing procedures were seen as “very strict” and “more demanding” where they sometimes needed to be more nuanced.

In the report, Ms Mullally said: “In one case, for example, a Refugee Appeals Tribunal member is repo-rted as having dismissed an applicant’s account of rape as a ‘fabrication’ intended to enhance the asylum claim.

“In dismissing the credibility of the applicant’s claim, the tribunal member commented that the account of rape had not been included in her questionnaire and was not credible.

“The report notes, however, that a review of the applicant’s questionnaire and screening interview reveals that these events had been recounted by the applicant and moreover were accurately summarised in the ORAC [Office of the Refugee Applications Commissioner] decision.

“It is ‘difficult to believe’ that such an oversight could occur in the asylum process and that an applicant’s testimony of a traumatic experience could be so summarily dismissed.”

The Refugee Council’s report makes a series of recommendations, including training on the application of the standard and burden of proof and that facilities for assessing the validity of various documents.

* www.irishrefugeecouncil.ie