The High Court in Ireland has found that a Zimbabwean national failed to provide substantial grounds for seeking judicial review of the judgment brought against him by the International Protection Appeal 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 International Protection Questionnaire application and attended an interview with the International Protection Office on 20 October 2022.
He received an IPO decision on 24 January 2023 denying the declaration of refugee status, the declaration of subsidiary protection and permission to remain. He then filed a notice of appeal on February 10, 2023.
However, the Supreme 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 he was afraid of being “found out” by the Zimbabwean government and the ruling Zanu PF party due to the fact that he posted critical anti-government comments on Twitter, despite being a high-ranking official. The court noted that the legal submissions submitted to IPAT referred to the man who had published anti-government material The Internet in just one sentence.
The International Protection Office, in assessing his application, rejected his claim for fear of being found on the basis that the applicant had also voluntarily disclosed on his LinkedIn account his personal details, including where he had lived and worked in Zimbabwe and South Africa. He was laid off from his job in South Africa in 2021 and now resides in Ireland.
The IPO found that this publicly disclosed information undermined his claim that he feared he would be found out by Zanu PF or Zimbabwean authorities in South Africa or elsewhere. The Supreme Court agreed.
In relation to the applicants’ online Twitter postings, the Supreme Court decision referred to the fact that the appellant’s Twitter account was not in his name and “there was no evidence on offer that anyone would know or be able to discover the author of the tweets”. He has posted using a pseudonym or his accounts have been viewed or monitored by any government officials, ZANU-PF members, or otherwise. essence
