The High Court has dismissed an application by an anonymised Nigerian man for leave to challenge the rejection of his international protection appeal, finding he had not established substantial grounds for judicial review.
Mr Justice Charles Meenan delivered the judgment on 20 July 2023. The application sought permission to pursue judicial review, including an order quashing the International Protection Appeals Tribunal’s decision. The court had directed that the leave application be heard on notice to the Tribunal and the Minister for Justice, both of whom opposed it.
The applicant said he had been kidnapped with his mother by herdsmen in Nigeria in April 2019, held and forced to work. He alleged that his mother was raped and killed, and that he was stabbed when he tried to follow her captors. He said he later escaped with others, travelled to Niger and eventually came to Ireland. He feared persecution or serious harm if returned to Nigeria.
An International Protection Officer recommended in July 2022 that he receive neither refugee status nor subsidiary protection. The Tribunal heard his appeal in September and, in a decision dated 25 October 2022, affirmed that recommendation.
In seeking judicial review, the applicant argued that the Tribunal had assessed medical evidence, his credibility and country-of-origin information unlawfully or irrationally. He relied in particular on a medical report describing his injuries and psychological condition as “highly consistent” with his account.
The judge stressed that the leave hearing was not an appeal on the evidence. The court’s role was to examine the procedures and legal principles applied, and whether the Tribunal’s conclusions were rational and supported by the evidence. The applicant had to show “substantial grounds” to proceed.
The judgment said the Tribunal had identified several credibility concerns, including that the applicant had not mentioned during his earlier interview the alleged ransom demand, being made to work, or being stabbed. There were also inconsistencies about how he escaped. The judge considered the Tribunal entitled to conclude that the medical report and documents including a police report and an affidavit from the applicant’s wife did not establish the claimed events independently of his credibility.
The Tribunal had also considered the risks of return as a failed asylum seeker. It found the country information did not suggest such returnees faced execution, and that the claimed risk depended on an account of past targeting the Tribunal had not accepted.
The court dismissed the leave application. The judge gave a provisional view that the respondents were entitled to the application’s costs, including reserved costs, subject to agreement. The applicant could contest costs through written submissions by 15 September 2023; the respondents could reply by 5 October. The matter was listed for mention on 12 October for final orders. The judgment does not state what final costs orders were subsequently made.