The High Court has quashed a Refugee Appeals Tribunal decision affirming the rejection of a Nigerian man’s application for refugee status, finding that the decision did not clearly explain its assessment of his claim. The matter was remitted for a fresh consideration by a different tribunal member.
The applicant sought judicial review of the Tribunal’s decision of 1 October 2012. He was outside the 14-day time limit, but the court granted an extension after considering his explanation; the respondents did not contest the extension at the hearing.
The applicant said he survived an attack on his church in Maiduguri in September 2011. He claimed he had previously seen attackers unloading explosives and reported this to church elders, and feared the group would target him. He said he hid before moving to Benin and later travelling to Ireland. At Dublin Airport in June 2012, he initially said he was visiting as a tourist. When told he might be refused entry, he said he intended to seek asylum, first citing persecution because he was homosexual. Later, he attributed his fear to the militant group. The Refugee Applications Commissioner recommended refusing his claim, citing credibility, state protection and internal relocation. The Tribunal affirmed that recommendation.
The applicant argued that the Tribunal had not made clear whether it accepted his account, had relied on demeanour without explaining its effect, and had inadequately assessed protection in Nigeria and relocation. The respondents submitted that neither the Commissioner nor the Tribunal believed him, that he had not shown state protection was unavailable, and that his stay in Benin supported relocation.
Justice Stewart held that an applicant is entitled to a clear, reasoned decision. The Tribunal had not clearly stated whether it accepted the core account or, if rejecting it, why. The judge also found no specific explanation of how the Tribunal member’s observations of the applicant affected the credibility assessment.
The court said there is no legal rule requiring an applicant to report fears to state authorities. A decision-maker may weigh country information, but should explain why some information is preferred over other material. The Tribunal had discounted the applicant for not approaching police without engaging with his claim that Nigerian authorities would be unable or unwilling to help.
The relocation reasoning was also inadequate. The Tribunal treated the applicant’s time in Benin as evidence that he had relocated safely, although his account was that he had been hiding in Maiduguri and avoided contact with others in Benin. The judge said it was unclear whether relocation was a finding or part of the credibility assessment.
The court granted leave, quashed the Tribunal decision and remitted the appeal for de novo consideration by a different member. It did not decide whether the applicant’s account was true or whether he qualified for protection.