The High Court refused an anonymised applicant leave to seek judicial review of a Refugee Appeals Tribunal decision rejecting her claim for refugee status. The court held that no substantial grounds had been advanced to show the Tribunal’s decision was unlawful.
The judgment, delivered by Mr Justice Colm Mac Eochaidh on 22 February 2013, followed a “telescoped” hearing intended to address both the leave application and, if leave were granted, the substantive judicial review. Leave was refused, so the court did not proceed to substantive relief.
The applicant’s case was that she had been trafficked from Nigeria to Italy in 2004, believing she would work in a house, but was forced into prostitution. She said she had suffered rape and torture, that traffickers demanded €60,000 from her and her parents, and that her family fled their home. She said she feared persecution if returned to Nigeria. These were her claims as recorded in the judgment, not findings by the High Court.
The Tribunal had rejected her account on credibility grounds, citing accumulated inconsistencies and implausibilities. It also assessed conditions in Nigeria and concluded that state protection was available and that relocation within the country was viable. The applicant challenged the clarity and consistency of the Tribunal’s reasoning, its credibility findings, its treatment of country information and letters from Ruhama, and its internal relocation assessment.
The High Court rejected those complaints. It said the Tribunal could make negative credibility findings and still examine state protection as a precautionary, comprehensive assessment. The judge found the decision clear and considered the Tribunal’s credibility reasons adequately explained. He also adopted an approach from an earlier High Court case, A.A.T. v Refugee Appeals Tribunal, in rejecting the challenge to the assessment of country information and state protection.
On the Ruhama letters, the judge accepted the respondents’ submission that the Tribunal had noted their contents and found the claim not well founded in light of protection available in Italy and Nigeria and the credibility concerns. On relocation, the court noted that options including Abuja, Benin and Lagos had been put to the applicant, along with access to shelters and support from NAPTIP. It found the Tribunal’s conclusion rationally connected to the applicant’s age and education.
The court’s decision was limited to refusing leave for judicial review. It did not grant leave or make a new refugee status determination.