The High Court has refused an application to quash a Refugee Appeals Tribunal decision that upheld the rejection of an anonymised Nigerian woman’s asylum claim.
In a judgment delivered on 11 February 2009, Ms Justice Clark found that the Tribunal acted in accordance with fair procedures when it concluded that the Nigerian state was able and willing to protect the applicant if she returned. The court refused the relief sought in the judicial review.
The applicant, a Muslim woman of Yoruba ethnicity, said she was deceived into travelling from Nigeria to Italy in 2005 by a woman known to her only as “Mrs Rose”. She alleged that Mrs Rose took her passport, demanded €48,000 for travel expenses and threatened her family when she refused to work as a prostitute. The applicant said she did not engage in prostitution, but was assaulted and had money taken from her while working at a tennis club. She also alleged that her boyfriend was attacked and that her family in Nigeria was threatened.
She arrived in Ireland in April 2006 and applied for asylum. The Refugee Applications Commissioner recommended against granting refugee status, and the Tribunal affirmed that recommendation in October 2006. The applicant sought judicial review, arguing that the Tribunal had failed to consider relevant country information and had selectively relied on material suggesting that Nigerian authorities could protect her.
The High Court considered three items that had been before the Tribunal: a 2003 West Africa Review report, an extract from a 2004 US Department of State report and two pages from a 2006 British-Danish fact-finding report. The judge did not consider a UK Home Office report exhibited in the judicial review proceedings, saying it appeared not to have been before the Tribunal.
The court acknowledged that the material described trafficking as an ongoing problem and reported corruption and complicity by individual police officers. It also found that the reports described Nigerian state efforts to combat trafficking and support returning victims. The judge said the material did not indicate a complete breakdown of state institutions and provided little support for the claim that returned victims were tracked down by traffickers.
The court found evidence on which the Tribunal could conclude that the Nigerian state was willing and able to protect the applicant. It rejected the claims that the Tribunal had cherry-picked the country information or ignored the West Africa Review report, and held that the Tribunal was not required to refer to that report expressly. The ruling addressed the lawfulness of the Tribunal’s assessment on judicial review; it did not grant refugee status or make a fresh asylum determination.