The High Court has quashed a decision refusing refugee status to an anonymised Nigerian woman, finding that the Refugee Appeals Tribunal had not properly examined whether she could safely and reasonably relocate within Nigeria. The appeal was remitted to a different Tribunal Member for fresh consideration.
In a judgment delivered on 1 November 2013, Ms Justice M. H. Clark said the Tribunal had appeared to accept that the applicant was Osu and faced a well-founded fear of persecution in Igboland. The applicant had said that her fiancé’s family attacked and threatened her because of her Osu status. Those were her claims; the court’s review concerned the Tribunal’s decision-making, not a fresh determination of refugee status.
The Tribunal had relied on two conclusions: that Nigerian police protection was available to the applicant and that she could relocate elsewhere, identifying Port Harcourt as a possible destination. The High Court found the Tribunal’s reasoning on police protection unclear and incomplete. In particular, it had not addressed a police letter describing investigations and arrests after a house fire, alongside a recommendation that the applicant leave the state for her safety.
The decisive flaw was the relocation assessment. Under Regulation 7 of the 2006 Protection Regulations, the court said, a decision-maker considering relocation must examine whether the proposed area is safe and whether it would be reasonable for the individual to live there, taking account of general conditions and personal circumstances. The Tribunal had not investigated whether Osu faced risk in Port Harcourt, whether meaningful police protection would be available there, or the applicant’s claim that a relative of her fiancé had followed her to the city.
The court also held that the Tribunal wrongly placed the burden on the applicant to establish that relocation was unreasonable. It said the decision-maker had a shared responsibility to identify and assess a safe relocation area, discuss it with the applicant and consider relevant evidence. Although the court noted that her circumstances as described did not themselves show that moving to Port Harcourt would be unduly harsh if it were safe, the Tribunal had not properly addressed that question.
The court rejected the argument that the Tribunal had ignored wider discrimination against Osu, finding that it was aware of the general conditions described in the country information. It also said reliance on undisclosed country information was a technical breach that caused minimal, if any, prejudice in the circumstances. The omission of six earlier positive Tribunal decisions was a valid concern but was not, by itself, enough to invalidate the decision.
The High Court did not grant refugee status. It quashed the Tribunal’s decision because the relocation alternative had not been adequately assessed and ordered a fresh appeal hearing before another Tribunal Member. The judge noted the applicant’s lengthy time in direct provision and expressed the hope that the rehearing would proceed with due expedition.