The High Court has refused a Nigerian woman’s application for judicial review of a decision rejecting her claim for refugee status, finding no legal error in the Refugee Appeals Tribunal’s assessment of state protection or her credibility.
The case concerned a Tribunal decision dated 21 November 2007 that upheld the Refugee Applications Commissioner’s refusal to recommend refugee status. Leave to bring the judicial review was granted in November 2013. In a judgment delivered on 21 March 2014, Mr Justice Mac Eochaidh rejected the challenge.
The woman said her family threatened and assaulted her after she became pregnant by a Christian boyfriend, while she and her family were Muslim. She said they opposed the relationship and told her to terminate the pregnancy. She claimed she was beaten, fled first to a friend’s home and then to Lagos, and feared her family would kill her or her child. She did not report the alleged threats to police, saying her family had told her police would treat the matter as a family issue.
Her counsel argued that the Tribunal had failed to give proper weight to country of origin information describing violence against women and limits on state protection. The challenge also said the Tribunal applied the wrong test when considering whether protection could reasonably have been available, and made unreasonable credibility findings about her journey to Ireland, the alleged pressure to have an abortion and the name of a pastor who helped her.
The respondents said the Tribunal had considered and quoted the relevant Amnesty International report, but also relied on a 2004 British-Danish fact-finding report that described avenues of redress and protection in Nigeria. They argued that the Tribunal had assessed both why the woman did not seek protection and whether it would have been forthcoming.
The judge held that the Tribunal had considered the submitted country information and applied the appropriate state-protection test. He found no irrationality in its conclusion that the woman’s explanation for not seeking help was insufficient, and no error in its overall assessment that protection was available. He also rejected the challenge to the credibility findings, citing inconsistencies recorded by the Tribunal about the man who helped arrange her travel, the pastor’s name and when she first raised the alleged pressure to have an abortion. The judge said those findings were not the primary basis for rejecting her appeal, though he considered them robust.
The court refused the judicial review. The judgment did not grant refugee status or make a new determination of the underlying asylum claim.