The High Court refused a judicial review application by an anonymised Nigerian asylum seeker who challenged the recommendation underlying the refusal of his asylum application. The court also granted an unopposed extension of time to bring the proceedings.
The judgment, delivered by Mr Justice Paul Butler on 17 October 2007, says the applicant sought asylum in Ireland on or about 1 March 2006. After interviews, the Refugee Applications Commissioner recommended that the application be refused in a report dated 14 March 2006. The applicant appealed that decision, but the appeal was held in abeyance pending the judicial review proceedings.
According to the judgment, the recommendation was based on a finding that the applicant’s claim lacked credibility and that, having regard to the case facts, available country-of-origin information and his testimony, he did not have a well-founded fear of persecution in Nigeria.
The applicant argued that the recommendation had been reached in breach of fair procedures. His written submissions relied on the High Court decision in *Idiakheua v Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform* (10 May 2005). That decision stated that an issue likely to be important to the Refugee Appeals Tribunal’s determination must be fairly put to an applicant so they have an opportunity to answer it. The quoted passage qualified that obligation as applying to matters of substance and significance to the determination.
Mr Justice Butler said the country-of-origin information was neither crucial nor critical to the recommendation in this case. He was satisfied that the recommendation was made intra vires and in accordance with fair procedures. On that basis, he refused the judicial review application.
The judgment records no further order concerning the applicant’s appeal, which it says had been put in abeyance pending the proceedings.