The High Court refused leave to seek judicial review of a Refugee Appeals Tribunal decision that upheld a recommendation against granting refugee status to a Nigerian man identified as M.H. [Nigeria]. The court also granted an extension of time to bring the proceedings, after finding the delay was minimal and noting that the respondents did not challenge the explanation given in an affidavit.
The tribunal’s decision, dated 4 November 2010, found that the man could relocate from Kano to Lagos to avoid alleged threats from Hisbah militants in northern Nigeria. It also found that he had not given a reasonable explanation for why he could not live there.
The man’s account, as recorded in the judgment, was that he and his family had faced persecution because they were Christians. He said his mother was killed in a riot in 1998, that he was detained and beaten twice in 2001, and that a Christian group he belonged to was attacked in 2007. He said his home was later burned and that police advised him to leave the area. These were his claims; the tribunal did not accept that he had objectively established a fear of persecution for a Convention reason.
His judicial review challenge focused on whether the tribunal had properly considered internal relocation, his medical evidence and country-of-origin information. He argued that his history of colorectal cancer and the availability of treatment in Nigeria should have been considered when deciding whether relocation would be reasonable or unduly harsh. The respondents submitted that the tribunal had considered his circumstances, that treatment was available in Lagos, and that he had previously received cancer treatment in Nigeria.
Justice Stewart found that the tribunal had asked about relocation to Lagos and considered whether the man could reasonably be expected to live there in light of his circumstances and conditions in the country. She rejected the argument that it had applied the wrong test, noting its finding that relocation would not be unduly harsh and that he could re-establish himself in Lagos.
The judge also rejected the challenges concerning medical evidence and country information. She found the tribunal was aware of his medical history and reports, including that he was then free of cancer but required follow-up care. The tribunal had also considered oral evidence, country reports and written submissions about sectarian violence, the judgment said.
The court’s decision concerned leave to pursue judicial review. It refused leave; it did not grant refugee status or make a separate decision on any other options that might be available to the man concerning ongoing medical checks.