The High Court has dismissed a Nigerian woman’s judicial review challenge to the refusal of subsidiary protection and a deportation order, finding that the Minister’s conclusions were fairly supported by country of origin information.
Mr Justice Noonan said the applicant’s account had already been rejected as not credible by the Refugee Appeals Tribunal (RAT). She did not challenge that decision. The judge said the general country information she later submitted did not address the credibility findings, which were a major obstacle to her protection claim.
The applicant sought to quash the Minister’s decision of 22 December 2010 refusing subsidiary protection and the deportation order issued on 13 January 2011. She argued that the Minister had not properly considered the country information she submitted, particularly on the availability of police protection and internal relocation in Nigeria, and had not adequately explained why it was discounted.
The judge said the Minister was required to consider and fairly assess up-to-date country information from sources considered reliable. He found no suggestion that the sources relied on by the Minister were unsatisfactory, and concluded that the Minister’s findings were fairly supported by that information and were not irrational. He also rejected the argument that the Minister had to provide the applicant with the country information used or give detailed reasons for rejecting each item she had submitted.
The applicant’s claim had previously been refused by the Refugee Applications Commissioner in 2006, primarily on credibility grounds. In 2009, the RAT upheld that recommendation after finding her account internally inconsistent and not capable of belief. It also found that state protection and internal relocation were available, though the High Court noted those findings were unnecessary once the tribunal had rejected her account on credibility grounds.
In 2014, the applicant sought to add new grounds based on later decisions, including a claim that she was entitled to a separate oral hearing on subsidiary protection. The court had refused that amendment, and the judge declined to consider the argument when it was raised again. He also declined to consider an Article 8 European Convention on Human Rights argument because it was not in the pleaded grounds.
The court dismissed the judicial review application. It did not quash either decision.