The High Court refused C.E. leave to seek judicial review of the Refugee Applications Commissioner’s rejection of her asylum claim, ruling that her complaint about undisclosed information could best be dealt with on appeal.
In a judgment delivered on 11 January 2012, Mr Justice Gerard Hogan found that the Commission member had inadvertently breached section 13(10) of the Refugee Act 1996 by not telling C.E. that searches had found no media reports about the killing she described. The judge nevertheless concluded that the error was not so serious that judicial review should proceed before an appeal.
C.E., a Nigerian national, said she feared three unidentified men who had instructed her to put a substance in the food of the politician for whom she worked as a cook in Abuja. She said she refused. She also said a cousin later told her that a woman travelling in her husband’s car had been shot dead on a motorway in December 2007, and that she believed the attackers had mistaken the woman for her.
The Commission rejected her account on credibility grounds. It cited her failure to take a return flight after arriving in Ireland in December 2007, her asylum application about eight months later after her arrest while working under a false identity in a Dublin suburb, and the absence of evidence from reputable sources confirming the reported killing. The Commission also found she had not applied for asylum as soon as reasonably practicable, meaning she would not receive an oral appeal hearing.
C.E. argued that the Commission had not fairly put its concerns to her and had failed to disclose its searches about the killing. The High Court rejected her fair procedures complaint about the questions asked regarding why she came to Ireland and delayed seeking asylum. It also found no error in the Commission’s conclusion that she could relocate within Nigeria, including to Rivers State, where she was from.
The judge accepted the disclosure complaint, but described the error as technical and in the middle range of seriousness. He said C.E. could present media reports about the killing to the Tribunal, which could reassess the matter. The court did not quash the Commission’s rejection or determine the asylum claim itself. It refused leave to apply for judicial review, leaving the appeal route available.