Ireland – Third Lowest European Rate for Granting Asylum

From the Irish Refugee Council: The latest European statistics on granting asylum show that Ireland has the third lowest The Irish Refugee Council welcomes the improvement in acceptance rates at first instance, but expresses concern at the continuing below average rate of acceptance in Ireland. 10% of cases were granted status at first instance and just 6.8% were successful at appeal. The total percentage of positive decisions was 8.3% compared with 34% in Portugal, 15% in Spain and 39% in the UK. Only Greece at 4.8%, Cyprus (5%) and Luxembourg (1.7%) had lower acceptance rates. Sue Conlan, CEO of the Irish Refugee Council, says: “The continuing low numbers of grants of refugee status or subsidiary protection in Ireland, which leads to the huge delays, show that there are serious deficiencies in the decision making processes. In particular, the statistics of 6.8% positive decisions at appeals bear out the severe criticisms of the refugee appeal body, the Refugee Appeal Tribunal, by the superior courts in recent months. “These deficiencies, which are at the root cause of the delays in the system, will not be remedied without significant reforms, including providing adequate legal advice for applicants and overhauling the appeal body. Neither of which are contained in the proposed the Immigration, Residence and Protection Bill.”

Change in procedure regarding return first country of entry

In a recent judgement of the ECJ it was decided that an asylum seeker may not be sent back to the first EU member state he landed in from outside the EU if he risks being subjected to inhuman treatment there. This means asylum seekers in Ireland who landed in another country first may not be sent back to the first country if they risk suffering inhumane treatment there. Under the current regime the state in which the asylum seeker first arrived was considered responsible for dealing with their asylum application. This was known as the "Dublin II" regulation. The ECJ ruled that Belgium should not have sent an person back to Greece where he had already been mistreated during the asylum process, as Greece was unable to guarantee that his human rights would not be infringed. In a subsequent hearing, the court was asked by the UK and Ireland to rule on two cases where asylum seekers had arrived from Greece and had objected to being sent back to Greece on the basis that the asylum regime in Greece was inadequate with regards to its human rights protections. In the Irish case a number of applicants, each of which originated fro different countries. They all initially arrived in Greece where they travelled on to Ireland where they claimed asylum. They resisted their return to Greece and claimed the procedures for asylum seekers there were inadequate. In the UK case, an asylum seeker had been arrested in Greece before making an asylum application and removed to Turkey, where he was held in in conditions which were such that his human rights were breached. He escaped from detention in Turkey and travelled to the United Kingdom where he claimed asylum. The Irish and English Courts asked the ECJ whether the State should verify that the receiving State (in this case Greece) will uphold the applicant's fundamental human rights. If the State finds that these rights will not be protected, the Courts asked should the State then assume responsibility of the asylum seeker's application? The judgement stated that States may no longer assume that fundamental rights will be upheld by the State of first entry.