The High Court has dismissed a Nigerian couple’s judicial review challenge to decisions refusing them subsidiary protection, leaving the International Protection Appeals Tribunal’s decisions in place.
Mr Justice Richard Humphreys ruled on 14 November 2018 that the tribunal’s credibility findings were reasonable and lawful. He also said the couple had not raised before the tribunal the argument they later made in court about a risk from indiscriminate violence in Nigeria.
The husband said his 2011 prosecution for forging two insurance certificates was a strategic response to his whistleblowing. The judgment records that the couple arrived in Ireland in May 2012 and applied for asylum in 2014. Their asylum claims were refused, as were later applications for subsidiary protection. The tribunal rejected their appeal on 27 March 2018.
The couple sought certiorari of the tribunal decisions. They argued, among other things, that the tribunal had not properly considered whether the case against the husband was strategic, and that its credibility assessment was flawed. The judge said assessing evidence was for the decision-maker and, on review, found the tribunal member’s credibility findings “perfectly reasonable and lawful”.
The applicants also argued that the tribunal had failed to make its own assessment of the risk from indiscriminate violence. The judge observed that the wording of one paragraph in the tribunal decision suggested it was asking whether to disturb the earlier findings of the International Protection Office, rather than stating the tribunal member’s own view. He said the wording fell short of the ideal legal standard.
However, the judge held that the couple had not made a submission to the tribunal about risk from indiscriminate violence. He also found no evidence supporting an individualised risk of that kind or showing that violence in Nigeria reached the exceptional level at which civilians could face a serious threat solely because they were present there. He said the wording issue therefore did not justify quashing the decision, in whole or in part, or directing a supplementary decision.
The application was dismissed. The judgment does not grant the requested certiorari or order a further tribunal decision.