The High Court has dismissed a Nigerian man’s judicial review challenge to a first-instance recommendation refusing him international protection, finding that his pending appeal to the International Protection Appeals Tribunal (IPAT) was an adequate and more appropriate remedy.
The judgment, delivered by Ms Justice Siobhán Phelan on 24 April 2023, concerned a recommendation by the International Protection Office (IPO). The applicant had separately claimed membership of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) and its Eastern Security Network (ESN), and a leadership role in the ESN. He said he feared persecution or serious harm in Nigeria and claimed his leadership had placed him on a wanted list. Those claims were allegations, not findings by the High Court.
The IPO accepted his nationality and personal circumstances but rejected his claim that he was wanted because of involvement with the two groups. The court found a “frailty” in the decision: it did not clearly state separate findings on the claimed membership and leadership. The judge said the applicant was entitled to have the distinct elements of his protection claim assessed, and expressed concern that the unclear characterisation may have affected the credibility assessment.
However, the judge rejected the applicant’s arguments that the IPO had failed to consider relevant country-of-origin information about violence against IPOB and ESN members. She also rejected claims that the applicant should have been shown the reports in advance or warned of the credibility concerns. The judgment said the decision showed the relevant information had been considered, and that the applicant had been given opportunities to answer and elaborate on interview questions. The court noted that translation concerns and further submissions about country information could be raised at appeal.
The judge held that the full statutory appeal, including an oral hearing and a fresh consideration of the issues, could address the identified lack of clarity and decide the protection claim on its merits. She was not satisfied that the first-instance flaw deprived the IPO of jurisdiction or created an injustice that could not be remedied on appeal. The court refused the relief sought and dismissed the judicial review application. It did not determine whether the applicant was an IPOB or ESN member, whether he faced a risk on return, or the merits of his protection appeal.