The High Court refused an applicant leave to seek judicial review of a Refugee Appeals Tribunal decision rejecting her claim for refugee status. Justice Michael Peart held that she had not shown substantial grounds for challenging the tribunal’s conclusion that she could relocate within Nigeria, or its handling of the case.
The applicant, a Nigerian woman, said she had been forced into a traditional marriage and subjected to beatings and threats of circumcision by her husband, whom the judgment refers to as “the Chief”. She said she feared he would find her if she returned. She had also suffered a serious leg injury that led to amputation below the knee, and was pregnant when she fled Nigeria in 2003.
The tribunal considered her account and concluded that she could avoid the risk by moving to another part of Nigeria, identifying Benin, Port Harcourt or Lagos. It noted her education, employment prospects and network of friends. The applicant argued that the tribunal lacked evidence that those places would be safe and that she had not had a fair opportunity to address relocation, which arose during cross-examination at her appeal hearing.
The court said the application concerned leave to seek judicial review, not the final determination of a judicial review challenge. It found no substantial grounds to argue that the tribunal had failed to consider relevant matters. The judge said the applicant had supplied no material showing why the proposed locations could not provide reasonable protection, and that the tribunal could draw on its general knowledge of Nigeria, subject to the principle of curial deference.
The judge distinguished the case from an earlier decision involving alleged persecution by police, saying this applicant’s alleged persecutor was her husband. He also found no substantial ground to challenge the tribunal’s assessment of her view that she could be found in Lagos, or its conclusion that fair procedures had been followed. The court noted that relocation had been raised in her interview and that the concept was relevant to her refugee claim.
The court refused leave because no substantial grounds had been disclosed. It did not grant or refuse a final judicial review remedy; the application did not proceed beyond the leave stage.