The High Court has refused a Nigerian mother and her minor son leave to seek judicial review of a 2009 decision refusing them refugee status.
In a judgment delivered on 3 April 2014, Mr Justice Mac Eochaidh rejected their challenges to the Refugee Appeals Tribunal’s decision of 4 February 2009. The application was a “telescoped” application for leave to seek judicial review; the court refused leave and did not quash the Tribunal’s decision.
The mother claimed she fled Nigeria because of violence and threats from her husband and feared that he would take their children. Her son’s asylum claim was based on hers, including her claim that he would be taken from her if she was returned. These were her claims, not findings by the High Court.
Her lawyers argued that the Tribunal made factual errors in assessing her credibility, failed to consider evidence and country information, and did not give her a fair opportunity to address adverse credibility concerns. They also argued that delay in deciding her appeal led to errors and prejudiced the applicants. The Minister’s side disputed those claims, saying the Tribunal’s findings were supported by the evidence and that the delay caused no prejudice.
The judge found no breach of section 16(16) of the Refugee Act 1996 in the Tribunal’s treatment of the mother’s evidence about a Nigerian statutory declaration of age. The Tribunal had found her account of who obtained the document and why to be confused and contradictory. The judge also rejected complaints about how the Tribunal recorded her movements within Nigeria and said the Tribunal had considered relevant country of origin information.
On fair procedures, the court held that the Tribunal was not required to debate each prospective credibility conclusion with the applicant. It also found no demonstrated prejudice or material error caused by the time taken to decide the appeal. The judge rejected the son’s challenge because it depended on the alleged errors in his mother’s case, which the court had not found.
The ruling addressed whether the applicants had grounds to proceed with judicial review. It did not make a fresh determination of their refugee claims.