The High Court extended the time for O.S.O. to bring his judicial review but refused his request to quash the International Protection Appeals Tribunal’s decision refusing him refugee status and subsidiary protection.
In a judgment delivered on 17 January 2024, Mr Justice Barr said the Tribunal had lawfully assessed the Nigerian applicant’s credibility and whether his fear of persecution was objectively well-founded. The case concerned a Tribunal decision dated 18 January 2023 that affirmed an International Protection Officer’s recommendation to refuse both forms of protection.
The applicant said he feared being forced to take a cabinet role associated with the Ogboni cult in Nigeria, contrary to his Christian beliefs. He said his father had died after refusing such a role, based on what his grandmother told him. He also relied on letters from a palace in Nigeria about his nomination and on reports that people from the palace had sought him at his church.
The Tribunal accepted the applicant’s narrative as believable, but concluded that his fear of persecution was not well-founded. In the judicial review, he argued that the Tribunal had misread country of origin information and reached irrational conclusions. The State argued that the decision had to be read as a whole and that the Tribunal was entitled to prefer the EASO report because of its clarity and source.
The High Court held that the Tribunal could regard the country information as inconsistent on the consequences of refusing a chieftaincy or Ogboni position. It also found that the Tribunal had explained why it preferred the EASO report over other material. The judge said the Tribunal could consider the applicant’s prolonged periods in Nigeria without harm and his travel through the UK, the United States and Germany when assessing whether his fear was well-founded.
The court stressed that accepting the applicant’s account as credible did not itself establish entitlement to protection. It concluded that the Tribunal had separately and lawfully assessed the facts and the objective basis for the claimed fear, and that the decision should not be disturbed.
The applicant was about 16 days late in challenging the Tribunal decision. The respondent did not oppose an extension, and the court granted one, citing the modest delay. It refused the other reliefs sought. The parties were given two weeks to make written submissions on the final order, costs and any other matters; the case was listed for mention on 7 February 2024.