The High Court has granted a Nigerian applicant leave to seek judicial review of three credibility findings made by the Refugee Appeals Tribunal, finding substantial grounds to argue that they may be irrational or inadequately reasoned.
The ruling, delivered by Mr Justice Colm Mac Eochaidh on 20 December 2012, concerns the leave stage of judicial review. The judge did not re-decide the applicant’s credibility or determine his protection claim. He said the court’s task was to review the Tribunal’s decision, not substitute its own assessment.
The applicant, identified in the judgment as CA, said he had belonged to the Niger Delta Vigilantes and MEND, and later gave Shell information about those groups. He claimed former associates kidnapped him and left him in a deep hole, from which he escaped before travelling through Zimbabwe and South Africa to Ireland, where he arrived in May 2008 and sought asylum. These were his claims, not findings made by the High Court.
The judge examined six credibility findings identified in the Tribunal’s decision. He considered the Tribunal’s concerns about the alleged abduction and the applicant being left unguarded to have stated reasons with no apparent irrationality. He did not treat a passage about the applicant’s involvement in criminal activity as a clear credibility finding requiring review.
But the judge said he had doubts about the finding that the applicant’s friend would not have helped him escape, and could not discern a rational basis or reasons for disbelieving the applicant’s account of travelling to Ireland. He also found substantial grounds to argue that the Tribunal had not fairly assessed why the applicant did not seek asylum in South Africa. The applicant had cited fear of violence against foreigners there; the judgment also records that he said he had never thought of seeking asylum.
The judge concluded that the three disputed findings concerned central parts of the applicant’s account and that possible errors could have affected the decision as a whole. He granted leave on two grounds: that the findings identified in paragraphs 8(iv), (v) and (vi) of his judgment were irrational, and that reasons for them were absent or inadequate.
The order grants permission to bring a judicial review challenge. It does not quash the Tribunal’s decision or grant asylum.