The High Court has dismissed a Nigerian applicant’s judicial review challenge to the refusal of subsidiary protection and a deportation order, finding that the complaints about both decisions had not been established.
Mr Justice Richard Humphreys delivered the judgment on 18 April 2018. The applicant entered Ireland in December 2008 and applied for asylum, which was refused in September 2009. He applied for subsidiary protection and leave to remain in October 2010. The protection application was refused in April 2011, reissued the following month, and a deportation order was made in July 2011.
The applicant argued that representations had not been considered, had been read selectively, and that country of origin information was insufficient and not provided before the decision. He also challenged the handling of past persecution and internal relocation, and the reliance on credibility findings made during the asylum process.
The judge criticised the grounds as generalised and boilerplate, saying they lacked particulars connecting them to the applicant’s circumstances. He said he would not allow such grounds to be recast after the event as specific complaints. He nevertheless went on to consider the factual arguments and found them unpersuasive. He said mainstream country information did not have to be put to the applicant and that the applicant had not shown that his submissions were overlooked. The court also found the internal relocation decision lawful and said the complaints about fair procedures and the use of UNHCR guidelines had not been made out.
On the earlier credibility findings, the judge considered whether a further hearing or interview was required at the subsidiary protection stage. He noted that an element of the original assessment involved the applicant’s demeanour. But the applicant had not requested an oral hearing or interview, and his subsidiary protection application did not address the earlier credibility findings. The judge concluded that the conditions for requiring a reassessment were not met and that it was not unfair to proceed without an interview.
The challenge to the deportation order was also rejected. The judge found no substance in those complaints and said the conclusion that State protection and a functioning police force were available in Nigeria followed from the material before the decision-maker. He rejected the argument that a deportation order could not stand without a lawful protection refusal, finding that the refusal in this case was lawful.
The application was dismissed. The judgment did not order a new hearing or interview.