The High Court has refused an applicant leave to seek judicial review of a Refugee Appeals Tribunal decision refusing her refugee status.
In a judgment delivered on 10 May 2013, Mr Justice Colm Mac Eochaidh considered a “telescoped” application challenging the Tribunal’s 3 March 2009 decision. The applicant sought to have that decision quashed and the matter returned to the Tribunal for reconsideration.
The applicant, identified in the judgment as T.O., is a Nigerian national. She claimed that an oil pipeline explosion in the area where she lived in Lagos destroyed her home and left her husband and children missing. She also claimed that three men attacked, beat and raped her while she was staying on a street corner that night. She said the men were associates of her husband and members of the Oodua Peoples Congress, and that she feared persecution because of an imputed political opinion and her status as a woman in Nigeria.
The Tribunal rejected her refugee-status application, finding, among other things, that state protection was available in Nigeria and that her claim had no Convention nexus. The applicant did not challenge the Tribunal’s finding concerning imputed political opinion. Her challenge focused on the assessment of state protection and whether she could qualify as a member of a particular social group.
Her counsel argued that the Tribunal had not adequately assessed country information about rape, women’s access to protection and the Nigerian police. The applicant also relied on her stated reasons for not reporting the rape: she believed police would not help, might demand a bribe, and that she felt shame and stigma. The respondents argued that the Tribunal had considered the relevant material and applied the practical standard for state protection, which does not require a state to prevent every isolated attack.
The judge found no legal fault in the Tribunal’s assessment. He said it had considered the country information, including an Amnesty International report, and the applicant’s explanations for not seeking police protection. He upheld the finding that it was not objectively unreasonable to expect her to seek protection and that she had not given a reasonable explanation for failing to do so.
The judge also rejected the challenge to the Tribunal’s conclusion on social group membership and Convention nexus. He found that the Tribunal had examined whether the applicant’s claim fell within a Convention ground and had made no legal error in concluding that she did not qualify as a woman in Nigeria who would be denied protection.
The High Court refused leave to seek judicial review. It did not quash the Tribunal’s decision or order a reconsideration.