The High Court has quashed a Refugee Appeals Tribunal decision refusing refugee status to a Nigerian woman and her daughter, finding that the tribunal did not adequately address two letters from a support organisation that were relevant to the woman’s claim.
Mr Justice McDermott’s judgment concerns a judicial review of a tribunal decision delivered on 27 January 2009. The applicant, identified as J.C., had challenged the decision outside the statutory 14-day period. The court extended the time limit and granted an order of certiorari on one ground: the tribunal’s treatment of correspondence from the Women’s Aid Collective (WACOL).
The woman’s asylum claim was based on her stated membership of the Osu caste and alleged hostility and violence from her husband’s family in Nigeria. She said the family objected to her marriage because of her caste, and that police did not act on reports of threats and assaults. These were her claims, not findings made in the judicial review.
The tribunal had rejected her account as not credible. It questioned whether she could have been unaware of difficulties associated with marrying outside the Osu caste, and considered her and her husband’s repeated efforts to reconcile with his family implausible. It also said she could relocate within Nigeria. The High Court found that the tribunal was entitled to draw an adverse credibility inference on the limited issue of her claimed Osu membership. It also rejected challenges concerning the husband’s reconciliation attempts, the tribunal’s consideration of earlier decisions, delay in delivering its decision and relocation.
The two WACOL letters, dated 10 March 2005 and 10 March 2008, concerned the organisation’s advice and attempted reconciliation between the applicant and her in-laws. The judge said it was unclear whether the tribunal regarded the letters as authentic or what weight it gave them. Although the letters were mentioned, the decision did not adequately address their potential relevance to the applicant’s core account. The court also noted unanswered questions about why the 2005 letter was obtained months before the police complaint and the applicant’s departure from Nigeria.
The court’s ruling did not establish that the applicant was a member of the Osu caste, that the alleged events occurred, or that she qualified for refugee status. It set aside the tribunal decision because of the unresolved treatment of the WACOL evidence. The judgment addressed the challenge to the decision concerning the applicant and her daughter; the separate decision concerning her son had not been challenged.