The High Court has refused an applicant leave to seek judicial review of a Refugee Appeals Tribunal decision affirming the rejection of his asylum claim. Mr Justice John Edwards ruled on 29 October 2008 that the Tribunal’s decision was rational and lawful.
The applicant, an anonymised Nigerian national, said he feared persecution because he refused to succeed his late father as king of the Isingwu Mbaise and take part in a ritual he said required him to kill two people. He alleged that his children died after he refused, that his pregnant wife was assaulted and miscarried, and that his home was burned. These were claims recounted in the judgment, not findings by the High Court.
The Tribunal dismissed his appeal and affirmed the Refugee Applications Commissioner’s recommendation that he not be recognised as a refugee. The applicant sought leave to challenge that decision, arguing in part that the Tribunal had failed to consider all the evidence, including country information and a medical report, and had selectively relied on country information.
The High Court rejected the claims that the Tribunal had failed to assess the applicant’s subjective fear, made an adverse credibility finding, or ignored explanations he had given. The judge said the applicant had been given the benefit of the doubt on subjective fear and that the issue was whether his fear was objectively justified. The Tribunal had found it was not, in light of country of origin information.
On the main dispute, the judge found no basis to infer that the Tribunal had overlooked material merely because it was not mentioned individually in its decision. He concluded that it had considered the evidence as a whole and had not arbitrarily preferred one country report over another. The material relied on by the applicant concerned funeral rituals, the judge said, rather than rituals connected with installing a new king; the country information was largely silent on the latter.
The judge also considered a supporting letter from a diocesan immigration services director and a medical report. He said the letter was anecdotal and did not establish familiarity with the relevant part of Nigeria, while the medical report showed psychological stress or trauma but did not identify its cause.
The court refused leave to apply for judicial review. It did not quash the Tribunal’s decision or determine the underlying asylum claim afresh.