The High Court refused a Nigerian mother and her three children leave to challenge a decision rejecting their refugee claim, finding no basis to interfere with the Refugee Appeals Tribunal’s assessment.
The applicants sought judicial review of the tribunal’s decision affirming the Refugee Applications Commissioner’s negative recommendation. The case was heard by Ms Justice Stewart, who delivered judgment on 19 November 2015. The proceedings had been brought outside the 14-day time limit. The judge accepted the mother’s explanation and extended the time for bringing the case.
The mother’s account, given during her refugee application, was that Muslims attacked her father’s church in Kaduna and killed her father. She said a friend helped her flee with her children to southern Nigeria, where they stayed for about three months. On returning to Kaduna, she said, she was told people were looking for her family and that members of her church had killed a mosque leader. A family friend arranged their departure for Ireland.
The commissioner’s report cited concerns including a lack of evidence supporting the account, the family’s return to Kaduna after relocating, the mother’s limited knowledge of the city, and a lack of evidence that the family could not relocate elsewhere or seek state protection. The commissioner classified the claim as “manifestly unfounded”, so the appeal to the tribunal proceeded on the papers without an oral hearing. The tribunal upheld the negative recommendation on 25 November 2011.
The family argued that the papers-only appeal involved unfair procedures, including fresh credibility findings made without an opportunity to respond, and that the tribunal failed to consider the appeal notice, country information and the children’s circumstances. They also challenged the assessment of state protection and internal relocation. The respondents argued that the decision was lawful and that the lack of an oral hearing arose from the commissioner’s earlier decision, which had not been challenged in these proceedings.
The judge rejected the claim that the tribunal made fresh credibility findings, concluding that the points at issue assessed whether the mother’s subjective fears had an objective basis and had been put to her at interview. She also found that the tribunal was entitled to take account of the fact that the family had not sought police protection, while noting there was no obligation to do so before seeking international protection.
The tribunal’s internal relocation analysis was separate from its rejection of the refugee claim and could be severed from that decision, the judge said. She found that the mother’s claim had been assessed as the same claim advanced for the children, with no separate fears identified for them. Concluding that the tribunal had exercised the required care in a papers-only appeal, she refused leave to bring the judicial review. The judgment does not grant refugee status or order the tribunal to reconsider the claim.