The High Court granted U. I. leave to seek judicial review of the Refugee Appeals Tribunal’s dismissal of his asylum appeal, finding arguable grounds concerning its credibility assessment and consideration of relevant material. The court did not decide whether the Tribunal’s decision should ultimately be quashed.
U. I., identified in the judgment as a Nigerian national of Igbo ethnicity, arrived in Ireland in October 2002 and sought asylum. He said he had been pressured to succeed his father as village king and refused because the required rituals involved human sacrifice. He alleged that he and his family were threatened, that his two sons died, and that his wife was assaulted during an attempted abduction. He said they fled with help from a priest, leaving three surviving children in Nigeria.
The Refugee Applications Commissioner refused his application in September 2003. In June 2005, the Tribunal dismissed his appeal, finding his account unsatisfactory in credibility and substance. The Tribunal made six adverse credibility findings, including about his response to alleged threats, his failure to seek medical help after his sons’ deaths, leaving children behind, and inconsistencies in his account.
In seeking leave, U. I. argued that the Tribunal had not shown it considered two SPIRASI reports and other material, including country of origin information. He also argued that key credibility concerns may not have been put to him for explanation, and that the Tribunal did not address the Commissioner’s finding that internal relocation was available. The respondents argued that the Tribunal was not required to discuss every document or factual issue separately and that it had stated it considered the material.
The court said credibility assessment should include relevant country of origin information, and that merely stating such information was considered did not demonstrate an assessment or rational analysis. It found arguable grounds that relevant considerations may not have been taken into account. It also identified a possible inconsistency in the Tribunal’s account of whether village elders threatened U. I. during his father’s lifetime, and said there was an arguable fair-procedures issue over whether the six adverse findings had been put to him.
The court also found an arguable issue over the Tribunal’s failure to address internal relocation. It said a lengthy analysis of every factual finding was not required, but issues of substance and material findings in the Commissioner’s report should receive due consideration.
The court granted leave to seek certiorari quashing the Tribunal decision and mandamus directing a fresh appeal hearing before a different Tribunal member. These were the remedies U. I. was permitted to pursue; the court did not grant them at this stage. His application for a declaration under section 5(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights Act 2003 was not proceeded with, and the court said it need not decide that issue at the leave stage.