Ireland - High Court, 14 January 2010, Obuseh v Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform [2010] IEHC 93
Machine-found from the cited source, not yet confirmed by a human. Open the source before relying on it.
What was at stake
EDAL summary. This case concerned the appropriate manner in which an application for subsidiary protection is to be decided where there may be at least an implicit claim of a “serious and individual threat” to the...
What the court decided
The High Court held that the Minister for Justice does not have a freestanding obligation under the Qualification Directive to investigate whether an applicant for subsidiary protection faces a serious and individual threat under Article 15(c) when the applicant has not identified or substantiated such a risk. The burden lies on the applicant to explicitly raise the claim, establish the existence of an armed conflict situation in their region, and demonstrate they face individual threat from indiscriminate violence—mere general violence in a region is insufficient. In this case, the Nigerian applicant furnished no evidence regarding armed conflict threat, so the Minister's refusal of subsidiary protection was upheld.
Categories
Authoritative link
This is a research and reference resource, not legal advice. Summaries are prepared from public sources and may be incomplete or out of date. Always read the original judgment or document and consult a qualified lawyer in the relevant jurisdiction before acting.
Narrative summaries on this page are licensed CC BY-NC 4.0. Reuse them with attribution to JusticeHub for non-commercial purposes. Original judgments and source documents remain under their own terms; follow the authoritative link for the source of record.