The High Court refused an applicant leave to seek judicial review of a Refugee Appeals Tribunal decision that affirmed the refusal to recommend refugee status. The court held that she had not shown substantial grounds for the challenge; it did not conduct a full judicial review or decide the underlying refugee claim afresh.
The judgment concerned an appeal decision made on 27 May 2004. The tribunal member had affirmed the Refugee Applications Commissioner’s recommendation against refugee status. The applicant sought certiorari and related relief, advancing six main complaints from 16 grounds originally set out.
The applicant said she had been forced into a traditional marriage in Nigeria with a village chief priest, and feared serious harm if returned. She said her husband suspected that he was not the father of her children, used spiritual practices to make her swear an oath, and threatened her. She also said she had reported the matter to police, who took a statement and watched her husband. These were her account and the tribunal’s recorded findings, not findings made afresh by the High Court.
The court rejected her arguments that the tribunal’s use of country information breached fair procedures or that it had to invite further submissions after an earlier decision was set aside and the appeal remitted to a different tribunal member. It found no evidence that the country information had been used to make a specific adverse finding, or that the applicant had identified material she could have submitted that would have affected the decision. The judge nevertheless said relevant or material information that could harm an applicant’s credibility must be put to them, and that quotations should be reproduced fully and accurately where appropriate.
The judge also rejected complaints that the tribunal misunderstood the basis of the applicant’s fear or wrongly assessed credibility and internal relocation. The court said the tribunal had first concluded, on the applicant’s account taken at its height, that she had not established persecution for a Convention reason. It noted that the tribunal’s separate relocation finding was inconsistent to a degree with its primary finding, but found no demonstrated prejudice.
The decision was limited to the application for leave. Applying the substantial-grounds threshold, including anxious scrutiny, the court declined leave to seek judicial review.