The High Court has refused a Nigerian woman’s application to quash a Refugee Appeals Tribunal decision rejecting her refugee claim, finding that the Tribunal gave clear reasons for its credibility assessment and acted within its jurisdiction.
The woman, identified in the judgment as O.O., sought judicial review of the Tribunal’s refusal of refugee status. She had claimed that Boko Haram murdered her brother in 2012 and that she fled Nigeria because she feared being killed for knowing that a man identified as Dr. Gamba was a Boko Haram member.
The Tribunal accepted that she was Nigerian but rejected her account as not credible. It cited inconsistencies about what she said happened at Dr. Gamba’s house, as well as concerns about her whereabouts, whether she had lived in Lagos, her friend Angela, the timing of her industrial training and information on documents she provided. The Tribunal said it could not assess whether her fears were well-founded after finding the account not credible.
In her High Court challenge, O.O. argued that the Tribunal relied on peripheral matters, failed to make a clear finding on the core claim and gave undue weight to her demeanour. The respondents argued that the disputed incident was central to the alleged risk and that it was one of several credibility concerns. They also submitted that the Tribunal could take demeanour into account with caution.
Ms Justice O’Regan said not all the credibility issues were peripheral and that those which might be considered peripheral were not minor. She noted that some concerns arose from documents the woman had submitted, including her driving licence and certificate of registration of age. Taken together, the issues gave the Tribunal a rational basis to find her general credibility lacking.
The judge also rejected the argument that the Tribunal could not rely on credibility issues that had not featured in the earlier ORAC decision. She said the Tribunal had jurisdiction to make an entirely new finding. She was satisfied that its decision clearly identified the points on which the woman had not been believed.
On demeanour, the judge said the Tribunal had given minor weight both against and in favour of the woman: it regarded her hesitancy as potentially relevant but also noted that she was upset at the thought of returning to Nigeria. The judge considered that balance legally sustainable.
The court refused the requested order of certiorari quashing the Tribunal’s refugee-status decision. The judgment does not grant relief against the decision.