The applicant, national of Zimbabwe, applied for international protection in 2017 and stated that she was married twice as a child, at the ages of 9 and 13, to brothers who were members of ZANU-PF.  She alleged to be the fourth wife of her second husband and to have entered into a lesbian relationship in 2016 which was discovered by her partner’s uncle in 2017. Due to alleged death threats from her own family and community, the applicant stated to have fled from Zimbabwe with her partner to South Africa and to be unable to return to Zimbabwe as her life would be in danger.

Her application was dismissed due to lack of credibility for her statements with regard to the marriage and to all the above-mentioned allegations related to sexual orientation and threats upon return.

The High Court dismissed the leave to apply for judicial review. It noted that the alleged procedural shortcomings related to the designation of the officer prior to the interview are not founded as the applicant interpretation could lead to situations where a designated IPO could not take over from a designated PO should the later become unavailable.

On the non-refoulement principle, the High Court found that the principle was taken into consideration when analysing the application for international protection, along with recent country of origin information and taken into consideration that the family of the applicant are still living in Zimbabwe.

The High Court also noted that the determining authority analysed the allegation of the lesbian relationship in Zimbabwe and that the applicant sexuality and her realisation of her sexuality were explored through several relevant question; the applicant was unaware of any support group for lesbian and gay in Ireland and had not engaged with any either in Zimbabwe, thus the High Court concluded that this claim was properly determined by the first instance and can be eventually challenged with an appeal before International Protection Appeals Tribunal.