The High Court has refused leave to bring a judicial review challenge to the Refugee Appeals Tribunal’s decision affirming the refusal of refugee status to an anonymised Nigerian woman. Because the case was heard as a “telescoped hearing”, the court also dismissed her application for an order quashing the decisions.
Mr Justice Eagar delivered judgment on 17 December 2015. The applicant challenged a Tribunal decision dated 6 December 2012, arguing, among other grounds, that it made flawed credibility findings, failed to properly assess country information and the risk of persecution, and inadequately considered state protection and relocation within Nigeria.
The applicant said she was bisexual and had fled Nigeria after her family discovered her relationships with women and threatened her. She also said the father of a woman she had been involved with threatened to have her arrested or stoned. The Refugee Applications Commissioner concluded that she had not established a well-founded fear of persecution. The Commissioner also recommended that her appeal proceed on the papers because she had delayed applying for asylum.
The Tribunal affirmed the recommendation after a papers-only appeal. It relied on credibility concerns, including the applicant’s account of remaining in the same yard for two days after the threats, her travel arrangements and her delay in seeking asylum. The High Court noted that a papers-only appeal required “extreme care” and that judicial review was not an opportunity to reassess credibility. The court considered several of the Tribunal’s findings reasonable, while describing travel circumstances as largely peripheral. It also said the Tribunal did not need to make a finding about the asylum delay in circumstances where it could not hear an appeal against the recommendation under section 13(6).
The judgment records that the Tribunal had considered country information describing discrimination against gay and bisexual people in Nigeria and serious punishments in some Islamic states. The court noted that much of the material concerned same-sex marriage and that less information was available about lesbian relationships. It did not grant the requested relief or determine the applicant’s protection claim afresh.
The court refused leave and dismissed the certiorari application. The ruling was about whether the challenge could proceed and the legality of the decision-making process; it was not a new determination of refugee status.