The High Court refused an applicant leave to seek judicial review of a Refugee Appeals Tribunal decision that had affirmed the refusal of his application for refugee status.
In a judgment delivered on 11 May 2015, Mr Justice Mac Eochaidh said he could not detect an error in the Tribunal’s findings that would justify court intervention. The application was a “telescoped” application for leave to seek judicial review. The court refused leave; it did not grant the requested certiorari or overturn the Tribunal decision.
The applicant, a Nigerian national, claimed he had been a lance corporal in the Nigerian army and was imprisoned after being ordered to help remove arms and ammunition from an armoury. He said he escaped with assistance arranged by a colonel, travelled to Ireland using a British passport, and feared a lengthy prison sentence or assassination if returned to Nigeria. Those were claims made by the applicant, not findings accepted by the court.
The Tribunal accepted that the applicant had a military background but rejected substantial parts of his account. It found his explanation of travel using a false passport, his escape from prison, his involvement in the arms removal and the colonel’s alleged role not credible. It also concluded that he had not established a connection between his claimed fear and a Convention reason for refugee status. The Tribunal said he had not substantiated the claimed punishment by identifying relevant Nigerian laws.
The applicant’s counsel argued that the travel findings were peripheral to the core claim, that the Tribunal had not adequately explained its conclusions about the arms incident and escape, and that it should have addressed the deaths of two soldiers said to have threatened to confess. Counsel also challenged the treatment of country-of-origin information, including material about corruption in the army, and argued that the Tribunal had not assessed the risk of future persecution arising from the applicant’s army history and escape.
The respondents submitted that the Tribunal had carefully assessed the account and that the asserted fear concerned prosecution for a criminal offence, without a Convention nexus. They also argued that the applicant had not produced country information supporting his claim about the punishment he might face.
The judge held that the Tribunal was entitled to reject the travel account and that its reasons were explained. He said it was not incumbent on the Tribunal member to make a separate finding on whether the two colleagues had died as described, given the rejection of the applicant’s credibility on other central parts of his account. The judge also considered the decision sustainable on the finding that no Convention nexus had been established. He refused leave to seek judicial review.