The High Court has refused a Nigerian man’s application to quash a Refugee Appeals Tribunal decision upholding the rejection of his asylum claim. The court found no fault in the Tribunal’s credibility findings and declined to order a fresh appeal hearing before a different member.
The judicial review concerned a Tribunal decision dated 28 September 2010. The applicant sought certiorari to quash that decision and have his appeal remitted for a new determination. Mr Justice Eagar delivered judgment on 18 February 2015.
The applicant said he feared persecution in Nigeria because he was bisexual and had been in a relationship with a man. He claimed his family learned of the relationship, that his brother threatened to call the police, and that he was forced to leave Nigeria in 2005. The judgment records that he had not been beaten or attacked because of his sexuality. The Tribunal had found his account lacked credibility, including his explanation for travelling on a British passport in another person’s name and for delaying his asylum application in Ireland until 2009.
The applicant’s lawyers argued that the Tribunal’s assessment relied on conjecture and failed to assess his account objectively. They also said it should have made inquiries about a passport he said Gardaí seized and about an asylum application he claimed to have made while in Cloverhill Prison. The respondent’s counsel relied on discrepancies in the applicant’s accounts and the absence of supporting documents.
Justice Eagar said there was no evidence that the applicant’s solicitors had sought the passport from the prison or relevant Garda station, or had contacted the prison service about the claimed application. He said the legal burden rested with the applicant and that the Tribunal was not obliged to obtain those documents.
The judge also noted that the Tribunal’s conclusion indicated it had considered the appeal notice, country-of-origin information, questionnaire and interview material. He accepted that the appeal issues had been dealt with appropriately, even though they were not directly mentioned. The court’s role in judicial review, he said, was to examine whether the decision-making process was legally sound, not to reassess credibility or substitute its own view.
The court refused the requested certiorari. It did not make an order remitting the appeal, and the judgment did not determine the asylum claim afresh.