The High Court refused an applicant leave to seek judicial review of a Refugee Appeals Tribunal decision rejecting his appeal for refugee status. The court held that the Tribunal was not required to assess European Convention rights as a separate basis for deciding whether he qualified as a refugee.
The applicant, identified in the judgment as M. O. I., said he was Nigerian and feared being killed because of his father’s association with a secret cult. He claimed the cult had killed his sisters through a “spiritual attack”. His asylum claim was rejected at first instance and on appeal.
At the hearing, the applicant abandoned four of his five grounds for review. His remaining argument was that the Tribunal had failed to comply with section 3(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights Act 2003. He relied on passages in his appeal notice alleging risks on return to Nigeria and referring to Convention rights.
The court distinguished a refugee status decision from a later decision on deportation. It said the Tribunal’s function was to decide whether the applicant met the statutory definition of a refugee. A refusal of refugee status did not itself decide whether he would be deported or refouled, or interfere with Convention rights. The court said Convention and constitutional rights could apply to how the Tribunal conducted its procedures, including fair procedures, but that did not require a general assessment of those rights as the basis for refugee status.
The court also rejected arguments based on sections 2 and 4 of the 2003 Act and European Union law. It said section 2 concerned courts interpreting and applying law, while section 4 set obligations for courts. It found no requirement in the relevant EU law for protection decision makers to assess Convention rights in the way the applicant proposed, while noting that procedural rights such as a fair hearing and the right to reasons applied.
The respondents raised a separate procedural issue: the original judicial review papers had not verified the facts relied on, and no affidavit explaining a need to extend time was before the court. The judge accepted that the proceedings had not been properly constituted within the statutory time limit. He nevertheless considered the merits first, saying the procedural point should not prevent an order if one were justified. Having rejected the applicant’s substantive arguments, the court refused leave to seek judicial review. It did not quash the Tribunal decision.