The High Court has dismissed a judicial review challenge by a Nigerian mother and her minor child to decisions rejecting their international protection appeals. The court did not overturn the International Protection Appeals Tribunal decisions, which remain in place.
The mother claimed her family had moved from Lagos to Mafa in Borno State in 2004 to escape violence linked to a property dispute with her uncle. She said she was a Christian, had children with a Muslim man she persuaded to convert, and that he was later kidnapped and disappeared. She attributed this to Boko Haram. She also described a later relationship in Lagos, a pregnancy, eviction after telling her partner, and fleeing Nigeria in fear for her life and freedom. These were her claims as recounted in the judgment, not findings by the High Court.
The court noted that she had applied for a UK visa in 2010 with a partner, but had denied in her asylum questionnaire that she had previously applied for another visa. The UK application contained an incorrect birth date and an altered name for her partner, as well as inadequate or inconsistent answers.
She arrived in Ireland on 21 September 2014 and sought asylum. Her child was born on 9 December 2014, and an application was made on the child’s behalf. Both applications were rejected on 31 July 2015. The tribunal rejected their appeals on 2 November 2017, notifying them by letters dated 3 November.
The applicants argued that the tribunal’s treatment of the mother’s claimed residence in Mafa was uncertain and lacked a clear, reasoned finding. The High Court held that this argument focused too narrowly on one paragraph: read as a whole, the tribunal decision rejected all material facts asserted by the applicants, including the claimed residence. The court also found that the tribunal was entitled to consider the UK visa application as part of its overall credibility assessment.
The court rejected the argument that the tribunal’s failure to refer expressly to UNHCR guidelines showed it had ignored them, noting that the decision said the documents provided had been considered. It found that the other grounds had not been established and that the judicial review challenge did not show a legal basis to disturb the tribunal’s assessment of the mother’s credibility.
The High Court dismissed the application. It did not make a new determination of the protection claims; its decision was that the tribunal’s decisions should not be quashed.