The High Court has quashed a decision refusing international protection to an anonymised Nigerian woman, finding that the tribunal’s assessment of state protection did not follow from the country information it had summarised.
In a judgment delivered on 20 November 2020, Ms Justice Tara Burns granted an order of certiorari quashing the International Protection Appeals Tribunal’s decision. The court also ordered the respondents to pay the applicant’s costs. It did not itself grant refugee status or decide the protection claim; the order quashed the tribunal’s decision.
The woman said she feared returning to Nigeria because an ex-partner had threatened to kill her after believing she had an abortion. She also described rape and sexual assaults in Nigeria and said she feared further attacks. The tribunal accepted that she had been raped and sexually assaulted, but did not accept that she faced a continuing risk from those assailants. It accepted that her ex-partner had threatened her and found she would have a well-founded fear of persecution from him if returned.
The tribunal nevertheless refused protection, concluding that state protection was available in Nigeria. The applicant challenged that assessment in judicial review, arguing that the tribunal had erred in its treatment of state protection and country-of-origin information.
The High Court rejected a separate argument that the tribunal’s finding of a well-founded fear, by itself, required it to grant refugee status. Reading the decision as a whole, the judge said the tribunal had first considered whether the applicant faced serious harm and then whether state protection was available. The finding did not mean refugee status had to be granted.
The court focused on the tribunal’s summary of information about violence against women in Nigeria. That material described the lack of nationwide laws addressing gender-based violence, poor implementation of laws where they existed, under-reporting and reluctance among women to report abuse because police were perceived as reluctant to pursue allegations. The tribunal nevertheless concluded that Nigerian authorities were willing and able to protect people from non-state agents, while acknowledging women faced greater difficulties.
Justice Burns said that positive conclusion was irrational in light of the tribunal’s own summary. The tribunal had also applied a presumption that a state can protect its citizens without considering whether the country information amounted to “clear and convincing” proof rebutting that presumption. The court therefore found the tribunal’s decision unlawful and quashed it.