The High Court refused an application for judicial review by a Nigerian man challenging the Refugee Appeals Tribunal’s decision to affirm the refusal of his asylum claim. The court found that the tribunal’s overall credibility assessment complied with the principles governing judicial review, despite criticising parts of its approach.
The applicant, identified in the judgment as A.O.K., sought an order quashing the tribunal’s decision. He said his parents and four siblings had died in a church bombing in Kaduna in June 2012. He also claimed that relatives wanted land left to him by his father and had arranged for hired killers to target him. He said he feared returning to Nigeria.
The tribunal rejected his account, citing inconsistencies about his travels, the circumstances in which he came to Ireland, and his account of a man identified as JB. The tribunal also questioned why he had not made further enquiries about his family or produced his father’s will. It concluded that he was most likely an economic migrant and affirmed the Commissioner’s recommendation.
The applicant argued that the tribunal had relied on country information about the bombing without giving him a fair opportunity to respond, mishandled his explanation that an interviewer had shouted at him, and made other flawed credibility findings. The State argued that the decision was reasoned and that the High Court should not substitute its view for the tribunal’s assessment.
The court held that the tribunal had misstated the law when it said an asylum applicant must first seek and be refused protection in their own country. The court noted, however, that the tribunal had not relied on that statement to reach its decision. It also found the tribunal’s handling of the applicant’s claim that he had been shouted at during interview unsatisfactory: it gave no reasons for rejecting the explanation and made no further enquiries. The court said credibility issues arising from that aspect could not stand.
On the country information about the bombing, the judge said it was unclear when the tribunal member learned that a BBC report referred to at least 50 deaths in the bombings and reprisals. The court concluded that the issue would have been fatal to the tribunal’s decision if the applicant’s alleged fear had been based on Boko Haram, but his claim instead concerned inherited land and threats from cousins. The judge also said the number of deaths was not a major credibility concern for the tribunal.
Despite those criticisms, the court considered the tribunal had identified numerous other credibility issues. Reading the decision as a whole, it concluded that the tribunal’s credibility assessment complied with the relevant principles. The court therefore refused judicial review in the telescoped application. It did not quash the tribunal’s decision.