The High Court refused an applicant leave to seek judicial review of a Refugee Appeals Tribunal decision that upheld the rejection of his refugee claim as manifestly unfounded. The ruling means he did not obtain permission to pursue the requested judicial review reliefs; the court did not grant those reliefs or conduct a full judicial review hearing.
The tribunal’s decision, dated 2 March 2004, affirmed an earlier recommendation that the claim be refused. Because the claim was classified as manifestly unfounded, the applicant had no entitlement to an oral appeal hearing, the judgment said.
The applicant said he had converted from Islam to Christianity and feared religious persecution in Nigeria. In his account, members of his family and Muslim extremists had attacked him and his wife, their home had been set on fire, and his wife had miscarried after a beating. He said he had moved between locations, including Kaduna, but could not obtain protection from the police. These were claims in his asylum materials, not findings by the court.
He challenged the tribunal’s decision on several grounds, including that it gave inadequate reasons, made unwarranted assumptions about Nigeria’s police and courts, mishandled credibility, and wrongly described his wife and marriage as alleged. He also argued that the assessment of his fear and the lack of an oral hearing were legally flawed.
The High Court reviewed the questionnaire and interview material summarised in the judgment. It noted gaps in the applicant’s account, including his inability to give approximate dates for key events or his wife’s departure, and his limited answers about the practice of Islam despite saying his father was an imam. The court said the section 13 report set out its reasons and that it saw no basis to fault the tribunal’s credibility assessment.
The judge held that the lack of a credible subjective account meant the objective element of the well-founded-fear assessment did not need to be considered. On that basis, the court said the challenges concerning the ability of the Nigerian police and courts to protect him could not succeed. It concluded that the case lacked merit and that the applicant had not met the arguability threshold for leave.
The court refused leave to seek the reliefs requested.