The High Court refused an application for leave to seek judicial review of a decision recommending that an anonymised Nigerian applicant not be declared a refugee. The decision was made by the Office of the Refugee Applications Commissioner (ORAC) on 3 November 2006.
The applicant argued that ORAC had acted unlawfully by assessing his claim without consulting country of origin information and by failing to take account of the European Communities (Eligibility for Protection) Regulations 2006. He said the lack of country information made the process unfair and sought an order quashing the recommendation.
The respondents argued that the complaints concerned the substance of the ORAC decision, rather than the conduct of the hearing, and should be raised on appeal to the Refugee Appeals Tribunal. They also said subsidiary protection was not for ORAC to decide.
The applicant’s account, as set out in the judgment, was that a secret society in Nigeria threatened him over his refusal to allow his youngest daughter to be sacrificed. ORAC rejected the account as not credible, citing, among other matters, the time the applicant and his children remained in Nigeria, gaps in his account of dates and movements, and his lack of identity documents. The High Court’s summary of those matters describes ORAC’s assessment; they are not separate findings made after a full judicial review hearing.
Justice Clark held that the 2006 Regulations applied to the assessment of refugee status, but an application for subsidiary protection could be considered only after refusal of refugee status. She rejected the argument that ORAC must consult country information in every case. While such information is generally relevant to credibility assessments, she said exceptional cases may be decided on personal credibility where country information could add no useful context.
In this case, the judge said the credibility concerns arose from the applicant’s own account, and country information would not have resolved them. She found no arguable case on the facts. However, she criticised ORAC for using wording that referred to assessing the account against relevant country information when none had been submitted or consulted, saying that language suggested a formulaic decision.
The court accepted that the matter properly belonged before the Refugee Appeals Tribunal and refused the application for leave. It did not quash the ORAC recommendation or determine an appeal on the refugee claim.