The High Court refused the applicants leave to bring judicial review proceedings challenging a decision that upheld a recommendation against granting them refugee status.
Mr Justice Ryan’s judgment, delivered on 5 November 2010, concerned a Nigerian mother and her minor daughter, who sued through her mother. The mother said her family feared persecution by members of the Ogboni cult in Nigeria. She alleged that her husband was pressured to take his late father’s place in the group, that she and her husband were assaulted, that a family shop was burned, and that there was an attempted abduction of her daughter. She also said the family sought police protection without success and moved between homes before leaving Nigeria for Ireland in 2007. These were her claims, not findings made in this judicial review.
The Refugee Appeals Tribunal had affirmed the Refugee Applications Commissioner’s negative recommendation. The applicants argued that the Tribunal member erred in assessing two letters concerning a request for police protection, in finding the alleged attempted abduction not credible, and in concluding that internal relocation within Nigeria was a viable option.
On the letters, the High Court said that even if the Tribunal should have considered them as supporting the mother’s account, they did not establish a refusal of state protection. The response attributed to the Deputy Commissioner said two requested officers could not be provided at that time and promised an investigation. The judge also noted an unchallenged Tribunal finding that the mother had not sought state protection in relation to several assaults and threats.
The judge found no substantial ground to challenge the Tribunal’s credibility assessment of the alleged attempted abduction. The Tribunal had identified a difference between the mother’s account at her initial interview and at the appeal hearing about how she asked a friend to check whether her daughter had been taken to hospital. The judge said this discrepancy could not be called irrational, while making clear he was not deciding the underlying credibility question himself.
On relocation, the court read the Tribunal’s reasoning in the context of its decision as a whole. It found that the Tribunal had considered the possibility of moving from Lagos to Port Harcourt and was not required to add further reasons for rejecting the mother’s explanation for not moving.
The court concluded that the applicants had established no substantial ground to challenge the Tribunal’s decision and refused leave to apply for judicial review. It did not determine the refugee-status claims afresh.