The High Court has refused Mike Ero’s application for judicial review of a Refugee Appeals Tribunal decision that affirmed a recommendation he should not be declared a refugee.
In a judgment delivered on 4 July 2006, Mr Justice de Valera said the tribunal member had given serious consideration to Ero’s case. He concluded that the member could reasonably assess the material before her and that he should not interfere with her decision.
The tribunal decision, dated 15 July 2004, affirmed a recommendation made by the Refugee Appeals Commissioner on 18 May 2004. Ero was granted leave to seek judicial review in April 2005. His challenge was heard in December 2005, with written submissions from both sides.
Ero argued that the tribunal had made errors concerning his claim that local police in Nigeria could not protect him. He also challenged its consideration of his nine-month stay in India without seeking asylum there. Among his submissions, he said the tribunal had failed to consider his subjective fears and country-of-origin information, and had wrongly treated his failure to claim asylum in India as a reason to reject his claim.
The court said the tribunal member could reasonably take account of Ero’s contention that he would not receive appropriate police protection. The judge described that contention as vague and unsatisfactory, and found no departure from principle or failure to provide fair procedures.
He also found that the tribunal’s reasoning about Ero’s stay in India was justified on the facts and applicable law. The court did not decide the refugee claim afresh; it concluded that the tribunal’s decision was one with which it should not interfere. The application for judicial review was refused.