The High Court has refused an applicant leave to challenge a decision that she should not be declared a refugee, finding that her proposed grounds for judicial review were not substantial.
In a judgment delivered on 9 July 2008, Mr Justice John Hedigan considered the Refugee Appeals Tribunal’s October 2006 decision affirming a recommendation by the Refugee Appeals Commission. The applicant’s case at the leave hearing was narrowed to whether the tribunal had properly addressed relocation within Nigeria and applied paragraphs 25 to 30 of UNHCR guidelines.
The applicant, a Nigerian woman, alleged that her husband had subjected her to violence, including rape while she was pregnant, and that she lost sight in one eye as a result. She said she left Nigeria in January 2006 and travelled to Ireland with an agent. These were her claims, not findings made by the High Court.
The judgment records that the tribunal had rejected her account as lacking credibility. Among the matters it cited were her statement that her husband wanted her to leave, which the tribunal considered inconsistent with her fear that he would pursue her; her failure to seek a divorce without giving a reason; and aspects of her account of travelling to Ireland using a false passport. The tribunal also noted that she had provided no medical or hospital reports supporting her claim of eye injury.
Justice Hedigan said the tribunal had set out ample grounds for its credibility concerns. He also addressed relocation, which the tribunal had considered despite its credibility finding. The applicant argued that no specific safe location in Nigeria had been identified. The judge said that, on the facts before the tribunal, any part of Nigeria outside the immediate vicinity of her husband’s location would be safe.
The court’s decision was limited to refusing leave to apply for judicial review. It did not grant the applicant permission to challenge the tribunal decision, and the judgment did not determine her refugee status afresh.