The High Court refused an anonymised Nigerian applicant leave to seek judicial review of a Refugee Appeals Tribunal decision that upheld the refusal of his asylum application.
In a judgment delivered on 18 January 2008, Mr Justice Hedigan said the tribunal had ample grounds to doubt the applicant’s account, particularly his description of travelling from Nigeria to Ireland. The court’s decision was limited to refusing leave to bring a judicial review; it did not grant leave or proceed to review the tribunal’s decision.
The applicant said he belonged to MASSOB, an organisation whose aim he described as recreating the state of Biafra. He claimed Nigerian security authorities had imprisoned, mistreated and beaten him while suppressing the organisation’s activities.
The tribunal had considered his account implausible. Among its concerns were that he said his name was on a list during a raid on his village in September 2004, yet he was not arrested; that he later went to a police station to ask about people who had been arrested; and that armed police stopped him at MASSOB headquarters without arresting him. He said he had not told police he was a member.
The tribunal also questioned his account of the journey to Ireland, including his inability to provide details about countries crossed or the airline used. It considered implausible his account of passing immigration checks with a passport that did not show his photograph, and noted changes in his evidence about presenting the passport in Lagos and his arrival in Dublin. He had disposed of his passport and boarding cards and provided no travel evidence.
The judge regarded a dispute over whether MASSOB issued identity cards as relatively minor. He accepted June 2005, rather than May, as the likely month of the applicant’s arrival, while noting that the judgment would proceed on that assumption. He concluded the tribunal’s concerns about the journey and the disposal of travel documents were sufficient to refuse leave.