The High Court refused an applicant leave to seek judicial review of the Refugee Appeals Tribunal’s decision rejecting his appeal against the recommendation that he not be declared a refugee. The court found that he had not met the statutory threshold of substantial grounds for challenging the decision.
The applicant, identified in the judgment as K. M., said he feared persecution in Nigeria because he would be forced to join the Osugbo cult and take part in human sacrifice. He said he fled after cult members reminded him of his obligations while his wife was pregnant. These were his claims; the court was considering whether he should be allowed to bring a judicial review challenge, not deciding his refugee claim afresh.
The Refugee Applications Commissioner recommended refusing refugee status, citing credibility concerns. The Refugee Appeals Tribunal dismissed the applicant’s appeal on 9 February 2006. Its decision referred to inconsistent answers, the applicant’s failure to seek asylum in France, missing identity documents and its view that he had shown no basis for refugee status. It said it had applied a forward-looking test and found no evidence of a likelihood of persecution if he returned to Nigeria.
The applicant argued that the Tribunal relied on errors and matters he had not had a fair chance to address, including his travel history and failure to produce documents or seek asylum in France. He also challenged the lack of an oral hearing and the Tribunal’s treatment of country-of-origin information. The respondents argued that the Tribunal had complied with its obligations and that any error about an earlier asylum grant in Germany was not material.
Justice John Edwards accepted the applicant’s explanation for delay: he had been waiting to learn whether the Refugee Legal Service would fund proceedings and then had to arrange new legal representation. The court was satisfied there were good and sufficient reasons to extend time if leave were otherwise warranted.
The court rejected the argument that the applicant could not have anticipated that identity documents and his route through France would matter to credibility. It noted that he had submitted detailed written appeal grounds and concluded that he had an opportunity to explain the issues. It also found that the Tribunal’s general statement that it considered the relevant facts and appeal materials supported an inference that it had considered the country information, and that the Tribunal had expressly applied a forward-looking test.
Although the judge said some arguments were arguable, including fair procedures, country information and the standard of review, he found they did not meet the higher statutory threshold of substantial grounds. The court dismissed the application for leave to seek judicial review. It did not grant leave or quash the Tribunal’s decision.