The High Court has refused an applicant leave to bring judicial review proceedings over a Refugee Appeals Tribunal decision that she should not be declared a refugee.
In a judgment delivered on 22 October 2010, Mr Justice Ryan considered challenges to the tribunal’s decision of 14 February 2008. The applicant argued that it had failed to address country information about domestic violence in Nigeria, had not properly assessed whether she could relocate within the country, and had made flawed credibility findings.
The judge said the applicant’s asylum claim was not based on fear of domestic violence. He described the article she relied on as irrelevant to the issues and unimpressive as a source of reliable country information. He concluded that the applicant had not established a substantial ground to challenge the tribunal’s finding that state protection was available in Nigeria.
On internal relocation, the applicant argued that the tribunal had not identified a specific safe location or explained how she could make a life there. The judge noted that the tribunal had referred to Delta State, where the applicant said she had stayed for about two months after leaving her in-laws’ home. She claimed she had been held there for about six months with her children.
The judge said the tribunal was entitled to find that relocation was viable, including in Delta State, where the applicant had previously lived. He rejected the argument that decision makers must in every case investigate in great detail the alternative life available to an asylum seeker. On the evidence before the tribunal, he found no substantial ground to challenge its relocation finding.
The applicant also contested the tribunal’s credibility assessment. The judge described counsel’s criticisms as point-by-point “nitpicking” and said credibility was not essential to the outcome because the tribunal’s conclusions on state protection and internal relocation were sufficient to defeat the case. He said the credibility findings were clearly explained and reasonably based on the evidence.
Concluding that the tribunal’s decision was careful and that no significant flaw had been shown, Mr Justice Ryan refused leave to bring judicial review proceedings. The ruling concerned permission to bring the challenge; it was not a full judicial review hearing.