The High Court has quashed a Refugee Appeals Tribunal decision upholding the refusal of refugee status to a Nigerian applicant, finding that the papers-only appeal did not show that his account and country information had received proper consideration.
In a judgment delivered on 23 June 2015, Ms Justice Stewart granted leave and an order of certiorari, and remitted the appeal for de novo consideration by a different tribunal member. The proceedings were a judicial review of the tribunal’s decision; the court did not decide whether the applicant’s account was true or whether he qualified for refugee status.
The applicant said he had worked unofficially for a former governor of Enugu State and feared a gang directed by the succeeding governor. He claimed that two brothers and a friend had been killed, and that he fled Nigeria. He arrived in Ireland in August 2008 but did not apply for asylum until November 2010, after being arrested and detained. The Refugee Applications Commissioner made adverse credibility findings and found that he had not shown a well-founded fear of persecution. It also found that he had failed, without reasonable cause, to apply as soon as reasonably practicable after arriving. That finding meant his appeal to the tribunal was decided on the papers.
The tribunal affirmed the commissioner’s recommendation in May 2011. In the judicial review, the applicant argued that the tribunal had repeated the commissioner’s conclusions without adequately considering his interview, his account of his work, and country of origin information about political violence in Nigeria. The respondents said credibility was the central issue, that the applicant had opportunities to address concerns in his appeal notice, and that the tribunal had considered the relevant material.
Justice Stewart said papers-only appeals required “extreme care and diligence”. The tribunal’s description of the applicant as an “unofficial driver”, she said, missed the point of his interview account, in which he described being a driver for people involved in intimidation and killings. The court did not assess the truth of that account; it found that the tribunal’s decision did not satisfy it that the account had received due consideration.
The court also found that, although the tribunal listed country of origin information as considered, its decision gave no apparent basis for that assertion. The applicant had started the judicial review proceedings late. The respondents did not object to an extension of time, and the court granted one, finding good and sufficient reasons. The commissioner’s original decision was not quashed in these proceedings.