The High Court has quashed a Refugee Appeals Tribunal decision refusing a Nigerian woman’s refugee claim, finding that the decision did not make clear whether her account was rejected on credibility grounds or because it lacked a connection to a Convention ground.
In a judgment delivered on 12 January 2016, Ms Justice Stewart ordered that the appeal be reconsidered from the beginning by a different tribunal member. The judicial review challenged a tribunal decision dated 19 November 2009. The court granted leave and certiorari; it did not decide that the applicant qualified for refugee status.
The applicant’s account, as recounted in the judgment, was that her husband’s siblings subjected her to female genital mutilation in 1997 or 1998 because she had not had children, and continued to harass her after she and her husband moved. She said two siblings assaulted her at her shop on 24 July 2006 and returned the next day to burn down her home. She left Nigeria soon afterwards and arrived in Ireland on 31 July 2006. These were claims made during her protection process, not findings by the High Court that the events occurred.
The tribunal had found her demeanour “less than credible”, questioned her account of years of harassment and her failure to contact police, and concluded that she could have lived safely in Lagos or elsewhere in Nigeria. It affirmed the earlier refusal of refugee status.
The applicant argued that the tribunal had not given adequate reasons for its credibility findings, had not properly considered her reasons for failing to seek state protection, and had made an unlawful internal-relocation assessment. The respondents argued that the decision contained substantial negative credibility findings and that any flaw in the relocation analysis could be separated from those findings.
The High Court rejected a preliminary argument that the applicant had failed to appeal the issue of a Convention connection to the tribunal. It found that the issue was apparent in the notice of appeal and had been addressed by the tribunal member.
On the substance, the court said the relocation assessment did not meet the requirements set out in an earlier High Court case. It also found the credibility reasoning equivocal: the decision did not clearly establish whether the claim failed because the account was not credible or because the alleged persecution lacked a Convention connection. The tribunal had not made a clear finding on female genital mutilation, described by the court as a core element of the claim.
The court held that if the claim was rejected for lack of credibility, clear reasons were required. It was not satisfied that the applicant’s claim had received proper consideration. The matter was remitted for a new determination; the judgment did not resolve the underlying refugee claim.