The High Court has refused an asylum applicant’s request to quash a Refugee Appeals Tribunal decision that upheld the rejection of her application for refugee status.
In a judgment delivered on 24 February 2009, Ms Justice Clark found that the Tribunal had not erred in assessing the applicant’s credibility. The case was a judicial review of the Tribunal’s decision, not a fresh determination of the asylum claim.
The applicant, identified in the judgment as O. A. A., said her husband and two children were abducted in Nigeria by members of the O’Odua Peoples Congress (OPC), and that she feared persecution if returned. She challenged the Tribunal’s reliance on issues including documents she submitted, a photograph on a missing-persons affidavit, differences in dates given about attacks on her home, and the absence of the alleged abduction from country-of-origin reports.
The applicant’s lawyers argued that the Tribunal had made factual errors and failed to consider appeal submissions referring to two attacks. The State argued that the evidence did not corroborate the claimed OPC involvement and that any error about dates would not justify quashing the decision.
Justice Clark said the submitted documents described an attack by “unknown assailants” and did not mention an abduction or OPC involvement. She also considered it puzzling that the missing-persons documents did not use the words abduction or kidnapping, and that the affidavit carried the applicant’s photograph rather than photographs of the missing family members. The judgment noted that the photograph issue had been raised in the earlier decision and was not addressed in the appeal submissions.
On the dates, the court said the papers did not clearly establish that there had been two separate attacks. The applicant’s interview referred to the baby’s passport being taken on 15 August 2005, while the questionnaire and incident reports dated the abduction to 1 October 2005. The appeal submissions referred to two attacks but did not give dates. The judge said any error carried through from the earlier assessment was not consequential in the context of the other findings.
The court also considered the lack of reporting in country-of-origin material. Justice Clark said that absence was one credibility factor, not decisive by itself, but could be considered alongside the other circumstances in the case.
The court refused the relief sought. It did not set aside the Tribunal’s decision, leaving the rejection of the applicant’s appeal in place.