The High Court refused an applicant leave to seek judicial review of a Refugee Appeals Tribunal decision rejecting her asylum appeal. The court found that the tribunal had set out specific reasons for its credibility assessment and was entitled not to examine internal relocation further after making that finding.
The applicant, identified in the judgment as B. (Nigeria), sought to quash the tribunal’s decision of 15 March 2011 and have her appeal reconsidered by a different tribunal member. The case was heard as a telescoped application for leave to seek judicial review.
B. told the tribunal that neighbours in Nigeria accused her of witchcraft and beat her, causing her to lose sight in her left eye. She also said that a man who helped her had her perform housework, and that his wife beat her. She said she received no help after reporting the matter to police. These were her account of events, not findings made by the High Court.
The tribunal rejected her appeal after finding that her account was not credible. It cited her short answers to questions about her travel to Ireland, a visitor visa application, whether she was married and whether she had family or friends in Ireland or the United Kingdom. The tribunal also referred to information in the visa application that conflicted with answers she gave at the hearing.
B. argued that the tribunal had not adequately explained which parts of her account it accepted, and that its credibility assessment relied too heavily on demeanour. She also argued that the tribunal had not properly analysed whether she could safely relocate within Nigeria. The respondents said the decision rested on her answers and documentary inconsistencies, rather than demeanour, and that the credibility finding was clear.
The High Court said its task was to review the tribunal’s process and reasoning, not to substitute its own view of credibility. It found that the tribunal’s reasons were specific and that the inconsistencies concerned central aspects of the asylum claim. The judge did not accept that the decision was based on demeanour.
Having made an unequivocal finding that B.’s account lacked credibility, the tribunal was entitled to refer to internal relocation without considering it further, the court held. The court refused leave to seek judicial review. Because this was a telescoped hearing, it did not need to make any order on the substantive relief sought.