The High Court refused an applicant leave to seek judicial review of a Refugee Appeals Tribunal decision that had affirmed a recommendation not to declare her a refugee. The court held that the proposed grounds were not substantial enough to proceed.
The anonymised applicant, a Nigerian national, said she had converted from Islam to Christianity in 2005 and feared her father would force her to marry a Muslim imam. She also said her father demanded that she have an abortion after she became pregnant by her Christian boyfriend. According to her account, police arrested the boyfriend on a kidnapping charge after she went with him to Ibadan; she later heard he had been released but did not know where he was.
She arrived in Ireland while six months pregnant in December 2006 and applied for asylum. Her daughter was born the following April. The Office of the Refugee Applications Commissioner recommended against refugee status for both. The Refugee Appeals Tribunal affirmed that recommendation in August 2007, citing concerns about the applicant’s knowledge of Islam, her account of events after her boyfriend’s arrest, and her explanation of her travel to Ireland.
The applicant argued that the Tribunal had handled credibility unfairly, made an inadequately explained finding under section 11B(c) of the Refugee Act 1996, failed to consult country-of-origin information and did not assess her daughter’s risk separately. The respondents disputed those claims.
The High Court found that the applicant’s asserted Muslim upbringing and conversion were central to her claim. In that context, it held that the Tribunal could reasonably treat her answers about Islam as undermining her credibility. The court also found that the Tribunal had linked its section 11B(c) finding to her account of travelling on a red passport without knowing its nationality or whether it contained a visa.
On country information, the court said consulting further material would have added nothing once the applicant’s account of her religious background had failed at the first stage of the credibility assessment. It also found that no distinct grounds had been advanced for the daughter, whose claim was therefore treated as subsumed in her mother’s application.
The ruling concerned whether the applicant had shown substantial grounds to obtain leave for judicial review. It did not determine a full judicial review challenge. The court refused leave.