The High Court refused leave to seek judicial review of a Refugee Appeals Tribunal decision rejecting a Nigerian woman’s asylum appeal, finding that the proposed grounds disclosed no substantial basis to quash the decision.
The judgment, delivered by Mr Justice Cooke on 21 July 2009, concerned the woman and her infant daughter. The woman said she had refused an invitation to join the Reformed Ogboni Fraternity, which she believed was a cult, and that she was later dismissed from her bank job in Nigeria. She alleged the dismissal was a pretext and that threats and violence followed, including damage to her home and an assault on her husband. She believed the events were connected to her refusal to join and to legal proceedings against the bank. The judgment records that there was no direct evidence linking the alleged threats or assault to the Ogboni group.
The Tribunal had rejected her appeal in August 2007, citing credibility concerns and country information which, in its assessment, did not support a risk of Ogboni violence to enforce recruitment. It also considered that protection or safe relocation within Nigeria was available. The woman sought leave to challenge that decision on grounds including the Tribunal’s use of country information, its credibility assessment and its treatment of her daughter’s claim.
The High Court concluded that the Tribunal’s assessment of country information was not contrary to the overall evidence. It noted distinctions in the reports between the traditional Ogboni cult and the Reformed Fraternity, which the reports described as law-abiding and non-violent. The court also said the Tribunal could consider the absence of direct evidence connecting the alleged threats to the group and the fact that the alleged threats had not been carried out, despite the ongoing bank case.
On credibility, the court found no material error of law in the Tribunal’s reasoning. The Tribunal had relied on matters including the woman’s account of her employment and delay in seeking legal advice, and her stated lack of knowledge about the distinction between the two Ogboni organisations. The court said the proposed challenge effectively invited it to substitute its own view.
The court rejected the argument that the Tribunal had failed to determine a separate claim for the daughter. It found no distinct appeal ground had been advanced for her: the alleged risk to her was the same family risk arising from the mother’s account, which the Tribunal had rejected.
The court said the proposed grounds did not meet the threshold for leave and refused the application. It did not need to decide the request to extend time, but added that the affidavit’s explanation for the four-week delay lacked dates needed to assess its cause and duration; the explanation would have been inadequate had a ruling been necessary.