The High Court has refused a Nigerian woman’s application for leave to seek judicial review of a Refugee Appeals Tribunal decision that upheld the rejection of her asylum claim.
Mr Justice Cooke delivered judgment on 21 December 2011. The challenge concerned a Tribunal decision dated 29 October 2008, which affirmed a negative recommendation by the Office of the Refugee Applications Commissioner. The woman had arrived in Ireland in 2007 with her three-year-old daughter, who was included in the asylum application.
The woman’s account, as summarised in the judgment, alleged rape, violence and threats by a man she called “Tolu”, including a threat that he would have her daughter circumcised. The Tribunal rejected her account as not credible after an oral hearing on 7 October 2008. The High Court described the Tribunal’s decision as based on its assessment of credibility and the plausibility of the events alleged.
The woman argued that the Tribunal should not have reopened credibility because, she said, the Commissioner’s report had accepted it and her appeal had focused on state protection and internal relocation. Alternatively, she argued that she should have received advance notice if credibility would be reconsidered. Her counsel also challenged specific credibility findings as mistaken or irrational.
The court rejected the jurisdiction and fair-procedures arguments as inadmissible and unfounded. It said those arguments were not covered by the pleaded grounds or addressed in written submissions. It also considered that the Commissioner’s report questioned aspects of the account, and said there was no evidence before it about what had happened during the oral hearing. The applicant had been represented by a solicitor and counsel, and the court noted that they could have objected or sought an adjournment if credibility had been reopened without warning.
The court held that a Tribunal appeal is a second-stage rehearing and that the Tribunal may make its own assessment of the facts and credibility, including after hearing the applicant. It found that the credibility findings were open to the Tribunal member and that the court could not interfere with them on judicial review. The application was refused. The judgment does not state that the High Court itself determined the truth of the allegations or made a new asylum decision.