The High Court has quashed a Refugee Appeals Tribunal decision rejecting a Nigerian man’s appeal for refugee status and ordered the case to be reconsidered by a different Tribunal Member.
In a judgment delivered on 22 September 2015, Ms Justice Faherty found substantial grounds for the challenge after a telescoped hearing. The court extended the time for bringing the proceedings, then made an order of certiorari and remitted the matter for de novo consideration. It did not decide whether the applicant qualified for refugee status.
The applicant said he had been a Christian pastor in Maiduguri and that Boko Haram attacked his church compound on 26 July 2009. He said he escaped, left his wife and four children behind, and later travelled through Chad to Ireland. He feared returning to Nigeria because of his preaching. These were his claims; the court did not determine whether the attack happened as he described it.
The Refugee Appeals Commissioner had recommended that he not be declared a refugee, largely on credibility grounds. The Tribunal upheld that recommendation. It questioned his account of receiving help from an Irish Catholic priest, leaving his family, travelling to Chad and returning from Greece. The Tribunal also said his credibility was “found wanting” and his evidence “lacking in focus”.
The High Court held that the reasons for rejecting the travel account and the Greece account were not set out. It also found the Tribunal had not explained the broader credibility rejection or made clear findings on the applicant’s central claims: whether his church was attacked, whether he fled as described, and whether he was a pastor. The court said its role was to review the legality of the Tribunal’s decision, not to decide credibility itself.
The Tribunal had said the applicant could relocate to Lagos or southern Nigeria. The High Court found that conclusion could not sustain the decision because the Tribunal had not assessed the applicant’s individual circumstances, the risks in the proposed areas or whether relocation would be reasonable.
The court also found the state protection assessment inadequate. The Tribunal referred to action taken against Boko Haram but did not adequately address country reports describing attacks on police stations, civilians killed in crossfire and concerns about identifying group members. The judgment said the Tribunal had not explained whether Nigeria provided reasonable protection in practical terms.
The court declined to rule separately on the treatment of earlier Tribunal decisions, as that assessment was linked at least in part to credibility findings it had impugned.