The High Court refused an application for leave to seek judicial review of a Refugee Appeals Tribunal decision affirming the refusal of a Nigerian mother’s refugee claim. The court found that the tribunal’s decision was based on internal relocation and that the applicants had not shown substantial grounds to challenge that basis.
Mr Justice Cross delivered judgment on 23 November 2011. The application concerned a 7 November 2008 tribunal decision, notified to the applicant on 12 November, affirming the Refugee Appeals Commissioner’s recommendation that she should not be declared a refugee.
The mother, whose two children were also applicants, said she was a Christian who had married a Muslim man. She claimed her father-in-law objected to the marriage, threatened her and incited assaults. She said she had lived in Abeokuta, Ogun State, for about a year before returning to Lagos, and feared returning to Nigeria because her sons would be forced to become Muslims and she would again face threats.
Her challenge argued that the tribunal’s reasons were unclear: one part discussed relocation to another area of Nigeria, while its conclusion said her account was implausible. In the alternative, she argued that the tribunal had not adequately explained its credibility doubts and had failed to address her claim that her father-in-law had influence over criminal gangs.
The judge described the difference between the tribunal’s relocation discussion and its conclusion as “extremely unfortunate” and criticised the decision’s style. But, reading it as a whole, he accepted the respondent’s submission that relocation was the basis for refusing the claim. He said the tribunal had considered the allegations about the father-in-law and had concluded that the mother would be safe in Ogun State. The judge found no substantial grounds to challenge that conclusion.
The court did find that the tribunal had not given adequate reasons for its credibility statements. Because this was an application for leave, the judge said he could not make a formal order striking those statements out. He said it would be unfair for any party to rely on them in later decisions about subsidiary protection or deportation, which should proceed without suggesting that the tribunal had made findings on credibility.
The application for leave failed, so the requested certiorari relief was not granted. The judge reserved the question of costs for further submissions and said the usual approach of costs following the event might not apply, given his criticisms of the tribunal’s decision.