The High Court has refused an application by a Nigerian woman to quash a Refugee Appeals Tribunal decision rejecting her application for refugee status.
In a judgment delivered on 11 March 2015, Mr Justice Eagar said he could see no fault in the Tribunal’s decision that would warrant an order of certiorari. The court refused the relief sought. It did not make a new decision on her refugee-status application.
The woman, identified in the judgment as P.E. (Nigeria), is an Ibo and a Jehovah’s Witness. She said her brother-in-law wanted land she owned after her husband died and threatened to kill her. She sold the land in January 2010 for about €3,500 and left Nigeria in July that year. She arrived in Ireland the following day and applied for asylum in September.
The Refugee Applications Commissioner recommended that her claim be refused, finding she had not established a risk linked to a Convention ground. The Commissioner also recommended applying a provision concerning her delay in applying after arrival. The Tribunal affirmed the recommendation on 27 January 2011.
The Tribunal considered that she had not sought help from the police, had waited some time before leaving Nigeria, and had not adequately described her travel route. It concluded that the alleged threat arose because of a land dispute and did not establish persecution for a Convention reason. The High Court noted an error in the Tribunal’s account: it said her husband had been killed, whereas the judgment records that he died in 2008. The Tribunal made no finding based on the mistaken account.
Her counsel argued that the Tribunal’s credibility assessment was unlawful, that it had failed to give adequate reasons, and that it had ignored her written appeal submissions. Counsel also argued that the relevant social group could comprise single women, widowed women or female-led households in Nigeria. The respondents argued that the claim concerned a crime over land and had no connection to the Refugee Convention or the statutory definition.
The respondents conceded that the Tribunal’s findings on internal relocation were no longer sustainable in light of developments in the law. The court said relocation only arose if the applicant first established a fear of persecution on a Convention ground. It concluded that the Tribunal had considered her notice of appeal and found no error warranting the requested order.