The High Court has confirmed the revocation of a woman’s refugee status after finding that she had provided false and misleading information in her asylum application. The appeal concerned the Minister’s decision to revoke her declaration under section 21 of the Refugee Act 1996; it was not a determination of whether she qualified for refugee status in the first place.
The appellant, identified in the judgment as Nz.N., was recognised as a refugee in February 2006 after claiming to be from Niger. In June 2012, the Minister revoked that declaration, concluding that she had misrepresented her identity and nationality. She appealed, denying that she was the Nigerian woman whose identity documents had been used in Northern Ireland.
The Minister relied on Garda and UK Border Agency material. It included a match between fingerprints held by Irish asylum authorities and those associated with B.Nz.I., a Nigerian nurse who had worked in Armagh; documents linking that identity to a UK work visa; and the discovery of B.Nz.I.’s original Nigerian passport at a third party’s home. The judgment also described similarities involving the names and birth details of the appellant’s son and B.Nz.I.’s son, and evidence that the appellant’s husband had used false documents.
The appellant said she had borrowed B.Nz.I.’s papers, with permission and in return for payments, to get work. She maintained that the two women were separate people and that her own account of persecution in Niger was genuine. The court considered her oral evidence and the explanations she gave for the documents and her inability to produce B.Nz.I. as a witness.
At the hearing, the court raised DNA testing involving the appellant’s son and husband as a way to address the disputed paternity evidence. It explained that inferences could follow if testing was refused. The appellant declined, saying she wanted to protect her son. The court also did not accept the bona fides of the husband’s proposed testimony and proceeded without him.
The judge found the evidence that the appellant and B.Nz.I. were the same person to be overwhelming. The court held that the Minister had correctly revoked refugee status because false or misleading information had been instrumental in its grant. It confirmed the Minister’s decision and dismissed the appeal. The judgment did not decide whether the appellant should originally have been recognised as a refugee.