The High Court has refused an applicant’s challenge to a decision recommending that he not receive refugee status, finding no error serious enough to justify intervention. The judgment leaves his appeal to the Refugee Appeals Tribunal available; the court noted that it had already been filed.
The ex tempore judgment was delivered by Mr Justice Mac Eochaidh on 7 October 2015 in judicial review proceedings brought by G. O. The applicant sought leave and final orders setting aside the Refugee Applications Commissioner’s decision, contained in a report dated 4 July 2011.
The judgment records that the applicant said he was Nigerian and had claimed asylum in Ireland after arriving in May 2011. The Commissioner had rejected his account as not credible, citing matters including his claims about being approached to assemble weapons in Bukuru, the burning of his supermarket, and alleged threats after moving within Nigeria. The Commissioner also referred to his inability to name a police commander and a discrepancy over whether he had applied for UK visas.
The applicant argued that the credibility findings were irrational. The judge found no irrationality in the individual findings or their cumulative effect. He also rejected the argument that the Commissioner had failed to decide a core part of the claim, noting that the applicant had not identified what that core claim was or which factual issue had been left undecided.
The court rejected complaints about country-of-origin information, finding that such information had been considered and that no general rule required consultation in every asylum application. It also rejected the fair-procedures argument concerning the UK visa information obtained after the interview. The judge said the applicant had given a clear answer when asked about visa applications and had not explained in an affidavit what he would have said if invited to comment on the later information.
The judge concluded there had been no jurisdictional error. He added that even if there had been errors, they did not warrant quashing the decision given the comprehensive appeal available before the Refugee Appeals Tribunal. The court rejected the argument that European Union law required judicial review of first-instance decisions and refused all relief.