The High Court refused an applicant leave to seek judicial review of a report recommending that she not be declared a refugee, leaving her to pursue her statutory appeal to the Refugee Appeals Tribunal (RAT).
In a judgment delivered on 26 June 2009, Mr Justice Cooke said the proposed grounds could be considered and were more suitable for determination through that appeal. The court did not decide whether the underlying asylum claim should succeed. It also did not consider the applicant’s request for an extension of time, because that was unnecessary after leave was refused.
The applicant, identified in the judgment as F.O., is from Nigeria. She challenged a section 13 report by an authorised officer of the Refugee Applications Commissioner. The report found she had not established a well-founded fear of persecution and recommended against refugee status. Her appeal to the RAT had been left in abeyance pending the judicial review proceedings.
The proposed challenge raised five grounds, including alleged selective use of undisclosed country information about HIV treatment in Nigeria, concerns about how credibility doubts were handled, an alleged failure to properly address EU protection regulations, the extent of inquiries into treatment availability in Lagos, and the assessment of her daughter’s position. The daughter was included in the asylum application but was not a party to the court case.
The judge said there was no general obligation to disclose country information used to assess general conditions. The applicant could challenge that information on appeal, including by submitting new country material. The court also said it was not the role of a judicial review to assess credibility, and noted that the officer had asked why the applicant’s husband would help her leave if he had rejected her.
On the treatment inquiry, the judge said any disagreement about the adequacy or accuracy of the assessment could be addressed by the Tribunal, which could consider testimony, new country information and its own research. The court found no substantial ground under the regulations argument. As to the child, the judge said her position had not been wholly ignored, although it had not received a distinct analysis; any elaboration could be addressed on appeal.
The ruling concerned whether the High Court should intervene before the statutory appeal was decided. It refused leave and did not determine the merits of the asylum application or the appeal.