The High Court has quashed a Refugee Appeals Tribunal decision rejecting a Nigerian applicant’s appeal, finding that three adverse credibility findings could not stand. It ordered that the appeal be considered by a different tribunal member.
In a judgment delivered on 17 December 2015, Mr Justice Eagar granted leave in the judicial review and made an order of certiorari setting aside the tribunal decision of 15 August 2013. The case was heard in a “telescoped hearing”, combining the leave application and the substantive judicial review. The court did not decide the applicant’s underlying protection claim; it directed a fresh consideration of his appeal.
The applicant, identified in the judgment as S.A.E. (Nigeria), said he had been threatened by members of an employee’s family after the employee and the employee’s father died. He said he moved between locations in Nigeria before leaving for Ireland, where he arrived on 5 January 2013. He applied for asylum on 23 May 2013. Those were his claims, not findings by the High Court.
The tribunal had affirmed the Refugee Application Commissioner’s recommendation, which confined the applicant to a written appeal. It relied on credibility concerns about his travel documents, his account of reporting threats to police, and the delay in seeking asylum.
The applicant’s counsel argued that the findings rested on mistakes or inadequate reasoning. The respondents disputed that the tribunal had erred, arguing that its assessment of the travel account had other supporting elements and that the delay explanation had been considered.
The High Court found that the tribunal had wrongly treated the applicant as saying he presented no documents during airport checks. The judgment said his section 11 interview described receiving documents from an agent and handing them back after passing through airport checkpoints. On the threats, the court found an error of fact in the tribunal’s conclusion about what the applicant had said regarding the callers’ identity and where they lived. It also criticised the treatment of the delay issue, noting that the applicant had already lost the right to an oral appeal because of the Commissioner’s assessment of that delay.
The judge concluded that all three findings were unsustainable and set aside the tribunal decision. The order requires a different Refugee Appeals Tribunal member to consider the applicant’s appeal. The judgment does not determine whether the applicant qualifies for refugee status or any other protection.