Thomas Pringle (Donegal, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

557. To ask the Tánaiste and Minister for Justice and Equality if his Department has conducted any recent review into the IPO's treatment of SOGI (sexual orientation or gender identity) asylum claims to establish whether LGBT asylum seekers have faced discrimination in the IP process; the reason his Department does not collect or publish statistics on the number of SOGI claims made or the rate of rejection for these claims; the guidance that has been issued to the IPO in relation to SOGI claims; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [8279/23]

Simon Harris (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I can advise the Deputy that Ireland follows the guidance of the UNHCR in relation to claims for international protection based on sexual orientation and/or gender identity and was one of the first countries to specifically bring sexual orientation within the ambit of a ‘particular social group’, under the legislation that was in force prior to the commencement of the International Protection 2015. I can also advise the Deputy that comprehensive training for International Protection Office (IPO) caseworkers and interviewers is conducted in conjunction with the UNHCR.

The IPO has incorporated the Difference, Stigma, Shame, Harm (DSSH) model into training for caseworkers. The model is designed to help the applicant provide a detailed narrative and provides a sensitive and appropriate way of assessing credibility in sexual orientation/gender identity (SOGI) claims. Written guidance on assessing SOGI claims has also been provided to all staff and contracted panel members. In addition, the IPO, in conjunction with the UNHCR, carries out a quality assurance process to review a sample of international protection recommendation reports.

As the Deputy may be aware, my Department is legally obliged to protect the identity of persons seeking international protection. As each application is examined on its own merits, the IPO, and the ORAC before 2017, has never kept statistics on the grounds on which applications are made. While an applicant may provide a particular Convention ground at the time of application, following a full examination of the applicant’s claim, it may be the case that the applicant does not articulate a well-founded fear of persecution for the ground stated at time of application, but could have a compelling case under another ground.

I am satisfied that all international protection applications, including those with a SOGI-based element, are examined fairly, sensitively and impartially by fully trained caseworkers and contracted panel members in accordance with all relevant UNHCR and EUAA (European Union Agency for Asylum) guidelines and also in accordance with the applicable laws, including case-law.