The High Court has refused an applicant leave to seek judicial review of a decision rejecting her claim for refugee status, finding that she had not shown substantial grounds to quash the Refugee Appeals Tribunal decision.
In a judgment delivered on 24 March 2009, Ms Justice Clark considered the challenge to the Tribunal’s decision of 29 June 2007, which had affirmed an earlier negative recommendation by the Office of the Refugee Applications Commissioner. The application was at the leave stage; the court was deciding whether the proposed judicial review could proceed, not re-deciding the asylum claim.
The applicant, a Nigerian national, said she and her children faced danger after her husband refused to become village chief priest following his father’s death. She alleged that community members abducted her and her daughter, beat them and left them tied to a tree. She said she later moved between locations in Nigeria before travelling to Ireland with her children in March 2006 and seeking asylum.
The Tribunal had made six adverse credibility findings. These included concerns about why the alleged abductors left the daughter behind, the absence of objective evidence that the family was later pursued, the applicant’s account of her husband’s contact with her, the authenticity of newspaper articles submitted in support, her evidence about whether an interpreter was offered at an earlier interview, and differing accounts of police involvement.
The applicant argued that the findings were irrational or speculative. The respondents maintained that the Tribunal had addressed the evidence and that the concerns related to central parts of the account. Justice Clark held that the credibility assessment had a rational and evidence-based foundation. She also observed that removing the disputed newspaper articles from consideration would not, in her view, alter the other credibility concerns.
The applicant separately argued that the Tribunal had not properly considered whether internal relocation within Nigeria would be reasonable for a single mother with two children, including the economic difficulties she said they would face. The judge said relocation under the cited UNHCR guidance is linked to an established risk of serious harm. As the Tribunal had rejected the account as not credible, the court said there was no utility in examining the relocation assessment in this case. The judge made no finding on whether the applicant was in fact a single mother.
Applying the statutory test for leave, the High Court concluded that substantial grounds had not been shown and refused leave. It did not quash the Tribunal decision or grant refugee status.