The High Court has refused two judicial review applications challenging decisions by the Refugee Applications Commissioner on separate asylum claims by Nigerian applicants identified as J. O. and O. O.
In a judgment delivered on 13 July 2015, Mr Justice Mac Eochaidh said the applicants had not established errors serious enough to justify the court quashing the decisions. The applications, filed in 2011 and heard together, concerned claims based on fears of harm associated with “juju” and other alleged past and future harm.
The applicants told the Commissioner they had attended a “cleansing ceremony” because the second applicant was pregnant before marriage. They believed black magic had caused a child’s death and a miscarriage. The first applicant said he was told the ceremony was a sacrifice, and that they left before it ended. They said elders threatened to use “juju” against them and attributed harm to the first applicant’s father and their daughter to it. The first applicant also said people seeking to harm him could locate him by his surname.
The applicants argued that the Commissioner had focused too narrowly on “juju”, failed to address alleged past persecution, and wrongly denied the first applicant an oral appeal hearing. The judge rejected those grounds. He found the s. 13 report had adequately captured the claimed fear, and said decision makers could consider the alleged events together as a general fear of “juju” practitioners. He also found the hearing decision rested on the lack of a Convention link and the availability of state protection and internal relocation, rather than the credibility finding cited by the applicants.
On relocation, the judge accepted that best practice was to identify a possible area within Nigeria. But he said that, given the applicants’ fear was localised, suggesting relocation elsewhere in a country of more than 150 million people was not unreasonable. Any lack of specificity was not grave enough to warrant court intervention. He also noted that the applicants had not identified personal circumstances that were left out or provided evidence that relocation would be unreasonable.
The judgment rejected the remaining challenges, including arguments about state protection, investigation of Nigerian laws and fair procedures. The court’s order was to refuse the applications. It did not determine new asylum claims or grant relief against the Commissioner’s decisions.