The High Court has quashed a Refugee Appeals Tribunal decision refusing an asylum appeal by a Nigerian mother and her two children, finding that the decision did not assess their claimed risk of persecution if returned to Nigeria. The case was remitted to the Tribunal for fresh consideration by a different member.
The judicial review challenged the Tribunal’s 13 March 2009 decision. The court extended the time for bringing the proceedings after accepting that the short delay was adequately explained. The application for leave was treated by agreement as the judicial review application, heard on 19 March 2013.
The mother’s account included claims that she faced threats and mistreatment in northern Nigeria after a relationship with a Christian man and a pregnancy outside her marriage. She also said she had converted from Islam to Christianity and feared the consequences for herself and her children. Those were claims made during the asylum process, not findings by the High Court.
The judge accepted that the Tribunal had lawful grounds to reject parts of the account of past persecution. The evidence had grown more detailed at the appeal hearing, including claims of being stripped and flogged, and the judge considered that these developments went beyond what could be explained by the brief initial interview. The court said the applicant could not justifiably complain about credibility problems created by those progressive additions.
But rejection of the account of past events did not resolve the separate question of future risk. The judge found that the core claim of fear arising from conversion to Christianity remained to be assessed. The Tribunal had focused on the alleged adultery and pregnancy, and it was unclear whether it had formed a view on whether the mother was Hausa, had been Muslim, or had converted to Christianity.
The court said the decision did not properly assess the risk she might face as a Hausa woman with two children who had changed religion, or whether she could safely relocate within Nigeria. It held that a negative credibility finding about some past events did not remove the need for a forward-looking assessment where other elements could provide a basis for considering future risk.
The High Court therefore granted certiorari, quashing the Tribunal decision and remitting the claim for fresh consideration by a different Tribunal member. It did not determine whether the family qualified for refugee status or make findings that the claimed conversion or future risk had been established.