The High Court quashed decisions refusing a Nigerian national’s refugee application after finding that the Refugee Appeals Tribunal had not clearly decided whether it accepted his claim to be homosexual. The case was remitted for a further hearing before a different tribunal member.
In a judgment delivered on 28 October 2014, Mr Justice McDermott granted the applicant leave to seek judicial review and an extension of time to bring the proceedings. The court found a substantial ground for review and accepted that good and sufficient reason had been shown for the delay.
The applicant had challenged the Tribunal’s decision to affirm a recommendation by the Refugee Applications Commissioner, as well as the Minister’s refusal of refugee status. He said he had fled Nigeria because he feared persecution linked to his sexual orientation.
The Tribunal had cited inconsistencies in his accounts, including when he realised he was gay and whether he had previously had a girlfriend. It also questioned his account of continuing a relationship after his partner had revealed it to people in his village. The High Court said the Tribunal’s decision was unclear: some reasoning appeared to treat elements of his relationship as accepted, while other parts implied that his claimed sexual orientation was not accepted.
The court said a clear determination on that central issue was necessary. If the Tribunal accepted the applicant was gay, it would need to assess his circumstances on return in line with the approach in H.J. (Iran), including whether he would conceal his sexual orientation and why, and the risks he might face. The judgment also noted that the Tribunal had given little consideration to how relocation within Nigeria might work, including where the applicant could reasonably be expected to go and how he could live there. The court did not decide the separate relocation challenge, saying it was unnecessary to do so in light of the required assessment.
The court rejected the respondents’ submission that later evidence that the applicant had fathered a child after a brief acquaintance with the child’s mother was enough to refuse certiorari for lack of candour. It said that matter could be raised in evidence at a rehearing. The judgment noted that the applicant had separately applied for permission to remain in Ireland following the child’s birth, and that application was awaiting a decision.
The judgment concerns the adequacy of the Tribunal’s decision and the procedure for reconsidering the case. It does not determine whether the applicant is homosexual or entitled to refugee status.