The High Court has quashed a Refugee Appeals Tribunal decision refusing an asylum appeal by an anonymised Nigerian applicant who said he faced persecution because he was gay. The case was sent back to the tribunal for a new decision by a different member.
Mr Justice Anthony Barr ruled on 1 October 2014 in judicial review proceedings concerning the tribunal’s December 2009 refusal. The applicant sought an order of certiorari to quash that decision. The respondents did not oppose extending the time to bring the proceedings, and the judge extended it to 19 January 2010.
The applicant said he had been assaulted in Nigeria because of his sexuality, including a serious beating in Lagos in January 2007 that led to a 12-day hospital stay. He said a man he met through friends helped pay hospital expenses and later helped him leave Nigeria. The tribunal had rejected parts of his account and concluded he could safely relocate within Nigeria.
The High Court found that the tribunal had not adequately addressed country information submitted on the risks to gay men across Nigeria when it concluded that relocation to Lagos was viable. The judge noted that the applicant said he had already been severely beaten there and had not gone to police because he believed they would not help him. The court quashed the tribunal’s internal-relocation finding.
The judge also held that the tribunal had not explained why it disbelieved the applicant’s account of the man’s assistance and his journey through London and Belfast to Dublin, or why it considered implausible his explanation for not seeking asylum in the United Kingdom. The tribunal’s findings on his journey and failure to claim asylum there were quashed for lack of reasons.
The court separately found that the tribunal gave no reasons for its conclusion that the applicant had not suffered past persecution. It also ruled that the tribunal had applied an incorrect legal test by requiring the applicant to show likely treatment breaching Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights, rather than assessing whether he had a well-founded fear of persecution.
Mr Justice Barr concluded that the tribunal had failed to provide a clear, reasoned and rational decision. He quashed the refusal and directed that the matter be reconsidered by a different tribunal member. The judgment did not determine the applicant’s refugee claim; it required the tribunal to make a fresh decision.