The High Court has refused an asylum applicant leave to bring judicial review proceedings challenging a recommendation that she should not be declared a refugee. The court said she had an available appeal with a full oral hearing and that the issues raised could be addressed there.
In a judgment delivered on 11 July 2008, Mr Justice McMahon considered the applicant’s challenge to a Refugee Applications Commissioner recommendation following an assessment that she had not established a well-founded fear of persecution in Nigeria. The applicant had also lodged an appeal to the Refugee Appeals Tribunal.
The applicant, identified in the judgment as F. O. S., is a Nigerian national. Her account was that her parents had promised her to a chief priest and opposed her choice of husband. The Commissioner found her account lacked credibility, citing concerns including her explanations for not seeking police protection, her husband remaining in the area for years after an alleged threat, and the means by which the couple were supported and travelled to Ireland.
The applicant argued that the Commissioner had not put relevant matters to her, lacked a proper basis for the recommendation and had not given adequate reasons. The judge accepted that one issue warranted concern: the Commissioner’s doubts about the claim that an imam supported the couple for seven months and paid their travel expenses might have been put to the applicant for further explanation or corroboration. However, he said that omission did not materially undermine the overall credibility assessment in light of the other reasons given.
The judge also concluded that the Commissioner had considered a newspaper report submitted by the applicant and was entitled to rely on country information concerning internal relocation in Nigeria. He said the court’s role in judicial review was to examine the decision-making process, not to substitute its view of the facts for the Commissioner’s.
The judgment distinguishes the refusal of leave from a final decision on the asylum claim. The court did not grant judicial review or quash the Commissioner’s recommendation. It said the applicant’s pending appeal offered an opportunity for a full oral hearing at which the disputed issues could be tested, and refused leave to bring judicial review proceedings.