The High Court has quashed a Refugee Appeals Tribunal decision refusing refugee status to a Nigerian woman and ordered a fresh hearing before a different Tribunal Member, finding flaws in the credibility assessment and internal relocation analysis.
In a judgment delivered on 22 September 2015, Ms Justice Faherty granted a short extension of time and, following a telescoped hearing, granted leave and an order of certiorari. The first applicant had sought to overturn the Tribunal decision affirming the recommendation not to declare her a refugee.
The woman, who is anonymised in the judgment, said she feared persecution in Nigeria because of her husband’s community activism and her own involvement in protests in Port Harcourt. She alleged that people were taken away after protests and that her home was burned in March 2009. The Tribunal had rejected her account, including her claimed return to Nigeria from Greece, and found she could relocate to an area outside the Niger Delta.
The court did not decide whether the woman’s account was true or whether she qualified for refugee status. It found that the Tribunal’s statement that she had shown a “marked inability” to answer certain questions did not identify the questions or explain the basis for that criticism. The court also held that the stated reasons did not rationally support the finding that she had remained in Greece throughout the relevant period and had not returned to Nigeria.
The judge upheld other parts of the Tribunal’s credibility assessment, including its findings concerning missing identification documents and the applicant’s account of her journeys. But the court could not determine what weight the flawed findings had carried in the overall credibility decision. Because the findings were cumulative and the Greece finding affected the woman’s core claim, the credibility decision could not stand.
The relocation analysis was also unlawful. The Tribunal had referred generally to moving somewhere outside the Niger Delta without identifying a particular area. The judgment said the decision did not show a careful assessment of the woman’s personal circumstances, including her concerns about Lagos and her circumstances as a woman with children, or explain why relocation would not be unduly harsh.
The respondents conceded the applications brought by the woman’s four minor children. The court granted leave and quashed the decisions concerning them, remitting each for de novo consideration by a different Tribunal Member. The woman’s own matter was likewise remitted for a de novo hearing before a different member.