The High Court has granted an applicant leave to challenge a refusal of subsidiary protection and a related deportation order, finding it arguable that the protection decision failed to address evidence that he had sought help from police in northern Nigeria and was told to convert to Islam to obtain protection.
In a judgment delivered on 3 February 2012, Mr Justice Kevin Cross refused the other reliefs sought at this stage. The case was at the leave stage: the court did not decide that the refusal or deportation order was invalid. It found that the applicant could proceed with judicial review on the specified grounds.
The applicant, identified in the judgment as O.J. (Nigeria), arrived in Ireland in August 2008 and claimed asylum. His claim included an alleged fear of his then girlfriend’s mother and religious persecution. He said he was Christian and had been attacked and threatened by an Islamic religious organisation, suffering injuries including a broken leg. The Refugee Appeals Tribunal rejected the claim, finding that the dispute with his girlfriend’s mother did not establish refugee status and that internal relocation was a realistic option if the alleged attacks in Kano state had occurred.
The Minister refused subsidiary protection on 3 March 2011 and made a deportation order on 25 May 2011. The applicant said he received the refusal letter on 21 July 2011, and the judgment records that the Minister did not dispute his account. He began these proceedings on 25 July 2011.
Justice Cross refused to adjourn the challenge concerning the duty to assess an application “in cooperation with the applicant” while a related question was pending before the Court of Justice of the European Union. He also refused leave on arguments concerning an effective remedy and the principle of equivalence between asylum and subsidiary protection procedures. The court rejected the claim that the applicant had a legitimate expectation that the Minister would delay the decision pending other European cases or invite further submissions. It noted there was no suggestion that he had further evidence to submit.
The court found it arguable that the Minister’s conclusion that police protection was available was unreasonable or irrational because the decision did not engage with the applicant’s account of his attempt to seek police protection and the response he received. Leave was granted to challenge the subsidiary protection refusal on that basis, and on the ground that it was not proportionate or reasonable in light of that evidence.
The Minister accepted that leave should also be granted to challenge the deportation order if leave was granted on the subsidiary protection issue. The court therefore granted leave on the ground that the deportation decision was not proportionate or reasonable, and on the consequential ground that the order would be invalid if the subsidiary protection decision were invalid. Costs were reserved for later consideration; the judge said he was minded to limit any costs awarded to the applicant to one day and to the permitted substantive issues.