The High Court refused an 18-year-old Nigerian woman leave to seek judicial review of the Refugee Appeals Tribunal’s decision refusing her refugee status. The court had already extended the time for her application, but ruled that the grounds presented did not justify allowing the challenge to proceed.
The woman said her parents died when she was three and that she was raised by her father’s brother and his wife. She told the asylum authorities that, in 2004, her uncle arranged for her to marry a man about 30 years older, referred to in the judgment as “Chief Danny”. She said a dowry was paid, she had no say in the arrangement, and her uncle threatened to kill her if she left. She lived with the man for two months in 2005, but no marriage ceremony took place. She said she escaped with help from church members and came to Ireland because she had nowhere to turn in Nigeria.
The Refugee Applications Commissioner found credibility problems in her account and concluded that her claimed fear of persecution on return was not well founded. The Tribunal affirmed that recommendation in November 2006. It found she had not shown a genuine risk of persecution and did not decide the credibility question. The Tribunal considered that state protection might be available in Nigeria, although imperfect, and that she could relocate within the country.
In seeking judicial review, the woman argued that the Tribunal’s conclusion about state protection contradicted the overall picture in country information, and that it had not properly considered whether protection would be effective. Her submissions cited material about forced marriage, legal sanctions, women’s support organisations and internal relocation. The respondents argued that the court should defer to the specialist Tribunal unless its decision showed a serious flaw.
Justice John Edwards said the country information presented a highly variable picture, but a state protection system did not have to be perfect. He concluded that evidence could support the Tribunal’s view and that it was not for the High Court, at judicial review stage, to reassess the weight given to that evidence. He also noted that the woman had not sought state protection in Nigeria and that she was not actually married to the older man; she had been promised to him in return for a dowry.
The judge found the Tribunal’s decision neither irrational nor unfair and refused leave to apply for judicial review. The court therefore did not quash the asylum decision or determine a substantive judicial review challenge.