The High Court has refused a Nigerian mother and her twin daughters leave to challenge a decision recommending that they should not receive refugee status. The court found no substantial grounds to quash the Refugee Appeals Tribunal’s decision and said the applicants did not need leave to amend their statement of grounds.
The judgment, delivered by Ms Justice M. Clark on 21 March 2013, concerned the tribunal’s 2 February 2009 decision. The mother’s asylum claim was based on her account that members of a secret cult in Nigeria planned to sacrifice her unborn child. Her daughters’ claims depended entirely on hers.
She said she had lived at a rehabilitation centre in Ibadan run by her partner’s father, where she became aware of alleged abuses. After the man was arrested and the centre closed, she said police questioned her and cult members threatened her unborn child. She left Nigeria in February 2008 and sought asylum in Ireland. These were her claims; the court’s judgment does not treat the alleged cult activities or threat as established facts.
The Refugee Applications Commissioner made a negative recommendation, citing credibility concerns, lack of evidence linking the mother to the arrested man, and the possibility of relocating within Nigeria. On appeal, the tribunal member rejected her account, questioned her description of travelling through immigration control, and found she had not sought state protection despite an ongoing police investigation. He affirmed the negative recommendation.
The family began judicial review proceedings after the 14-day statutory period, and the court found the explanation for the delay reasonable. However, it confined the applicants to the grounds pleaded. Their argument that the tribunal had failed to consider documents was not clearly included in those grounds, and they had not applied to amend them.
The judge considered whether amendment should nevertheless be allowed. She said the tribunal decision was brief and could be criticised for its form, but its reasons for rejecting key parts of the mother’s account were connected to her claim. The documents submitted—including certificates, a police report and newspaper articles—did not link her or her partner to the centre or the arrested man, or place her there as a witness. The court also noted inconsistencies between the documents and the dates reported in one article.
The court concluded that the documents had no probative value requiring the tribunal member to explain expressly why they were given no weight. It found the credibility and state-protection conclusions reasonable on the case presented. The application for leave to seek judicial review therefore did not succeed. The court did not conduct a full judicial review hearing or quash the tribunal’s decision.