The High Court refused an applicant leave to seek judicial review of a negative asylum report, finding that the complaints could be considered through his pending appeal to the Refugee Appeals Tribunal (RAT).
In a judgment delivered on 9 October 2009, Mr Justice Cooke said the case did not meet the rare and exceptional circumstances required for the court to intervene before the statutory appeal was decided. The appeal had been lodged in time but held in abeyance pending the judicial review proceedings.
The anonymised applicant, a Nigerian national, claimed asylum after arriving in Ireland in October 2006. He said he belonged to the Ika ethnic group and feared threats from the Ozu group after refusing to join its youth section. He also said the group used people for human sacrifice and that his mother died because of the problem. These were claims recorded in the judgment, not findings by the court.
A January 2007 report by an authorised officer of the Refugee Applications Commissioner rejected the claim. It cited credibility concerns about the applicant’s account of travel to Ireland, alleged threats and incidents in Nigeria, his time in Benin, and his reasons for leaving. The report also relied on country information when considering police protection and relocation within Nigeria.
The applicant argued that errors in the report meant his “core claim” had not been addressed lawfully and could not be repaired on appeal. He challenged the report’s treatment of the Ozu group, its use of country information, and its assessment of state protection. His counsel also argued that the 2006 protection regulations entitled him to a lawful first-instance decision as well as a lawful appeal.
Justice Cooke rejected that central argument. He said the report had considered the essential elements of the applicant’s account, even if aspects of its analysis were alleged to be mistaken. The statutory appeal allowed a second protection decision-maker to reconsider credibility, country information and other disputed issues, and could remedy errors in the first-stage report. The court also said the applicant could present relevant country information on appeal.
The judge concluded that the proposed grounds did not show a legal obstacle preventing the RAT from addressing the complaints. He refused leave to seek judicial review. The judgment did not decide the asylum appeal or determine whether the applicant’s account was true.