The High Court refused leave for a Nigerian man to challenge a Refugee Appeals Tribunal decision rejecting his refugee claim, finding that the tribunal’s credibility findings were reasoned, rational and open to it on the evidence.
The judgment, delivered by Ms Justice Stewart on 19 November 2015, followed a telescoped judicial review hearing. The applicant sought to quash the tribunal’s 16 November 2011 decision, which affirmed the recommendation that he should not be declared a refugee.
The court first granted an extension of time for the proceedings and directed that the hearing proceed on a telescoped basis, despite the respondents’ objection. The judge said the amended court rule gave her jurisdiction to do so and that it was appropriate in the interests of justice and expedition in this case. She noted that the respondents could succeed in opposing such a hearing in an appropriate case.
The applicant’s account, as summarised in the judgment, was that he had worked as a pig farmer in Nigeria’s Niger Delta and joined the Movement for the Emancipation of the Niger Delta (MEND) and two other groups. He said he took part in actions against oil drilling, later left MEND, and was captured and imprisoned after fleeing to Lagos. He said he escaped, lived in Ghana and Côte d’Ivoire, and travelled to Ireland, where he applied for refugee status in May 2011.
The tribunal rejected his account on credibility grounds, including his spelling of “emancipation”, his claim to have joined MEND in 2002 despite country information stating the group formed after September 2005, and inconsistencies about how he escaped from prison. It did not assess state protection or internal relocation after rejecting the claim as not credible.
The applicant argued that his spelling reflected that English was not his first language, that the other concerns were peripheral, and that the tribunal had failed to address his claim and medical evidence. The respondents maintained that the disputed details were central to the claim and supported the tribunal’s approach.
The High Court held that the organisation’s name was central to the applicant’s account and that the tribunal could take the spelling into consideration, particularly as he had spelled it correctly elsewhere. It also found a clear inconsistency between his interview account and evidence at the appeal about whether a guard helped him escape. The judge considered the escape central to the claimed persecution and accepted that the tribunal could reject the applicant’s explanation.
The court further found that the tribunal had country information supporting its conclusion about MEND’s formation and that the medical evidence was not, in the tribunal member’s view, capable of rebutting the credibility finding. The judge said a judicial review court must decide whether the tribunal acted lawfully, not substitute its own view. She refused leave.