High Court dismisses certiorari application against Refugee Appeals Tribunal decision based on credibility findings.

Neutral Citation: [2015] IEHC 47

THE HIGH COURT

[2011 769 JR]

BETWEEN

A.A. (NIGERIA)

APPLICANT

AND

THE MINISTER FOR JUSTICE, EQUALITY AND LAW REFORM, MICHELLE O’GORMAN SITING AS THE REFUGEE APPEALS

TRIBUNAL, IRELAND AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

RESPONDENTS

JUDGMENT of Mr. Justice Eagar delivered on the 4th day of February 2015

1. This is a telescoped application for an order of certiorari quashing the decision of the second named Respondent affirming the

decision of the Refugee Applications Commissioner that the Applicant not be declared to be a refugee and seeking an order remitting

the appeal of the Applicant for determination de novo by a separate member of the Refugee Appeals Tribunal.

2. The Applicant made an application to the Refugee Applications Commissioner by completing the questionnaire on the 25th

November 2010 having previously completed an ASY1 form on the 11th November 2010. He was interviewed by the Refugee

Applications Commissioner on the 13th May 2011 and on the 31st May 2011 the recommendation of the Commissioner was that the

Applicant not be declared a refugee. As the Applicant was in Ireland for at least a year before he applied for asylum the provisions of

s.13 (6) (c) of the Refugee Act 1996 applied to the application and because of the finding of the Refugee Applications Commissioner

any appeal would be determined without an oral hearing. The appeal was heard by the second named Respondent on the 18th July

2011 and the second named Respondent affirmed the recommendation of the Refugee Applications Commissioner made in accordance

with s. 13 of the Refugee Act 1996 (as amended).

The Applicant’s claim

3. The Applicant was born in Ondo State, Nigeria on the 26th June 1976. The Applicant was a Christian and a member of the Yoruba

ethnic group. He is single but his ex-girlfriend, son and daughter continue to live in Nigeria. He completed his secondary education and

graduated from Ondo State Technical College in 2000. The Applicant joined the All Nigeria Peoples Party (ANPP) and in 1999 he said

he suffered an eye injury during a riot. The Applicant states that he later left his family home in Ondo State and went to Lagos after

his stepmother confessed to killing his mother and threatened the Applicant.

4. In 2003 the Applicant went to Austria and applied for refugee status. He stated that he left Austria before his refugee application

was finalised and he stated he returned to Lagos. He stated he would intermittently go to his brother’s house in Lagos. The Applicant

states that on his return to Nigeria the political party were still looking for him. According to the Applicant he met a man from Egypt

and when he explained the difficulties the Egyptian man helped him organise his travel to Ireland. The Applicant paid approximately

€4,500 and in 2009 he said he flew from Lagos to an unknown country and then fled onwards to Ireland using a Nigerian passport. The

Applicant said he was able to support himself in Ireland by meeting people in the street who tried to help him. In October 2009 he was

arrested in a taxi in Ashbourne. The Applicant applied for refugee status in October 2010.

The decision of the second named Respondent

5. The second named Respondent said that according to the Applicant at the interview he was a youth leader at the ANPP party. He

injured his eye during a riot in 1999 and he states that the EDP (Government party) were searching for him on his return to Nigeria

from Austria. The Applicant had not mentioned prior to the interview with the Refugee Applications Commissioner that he had political

difficulties in Nigeria. In the questionnaire the Applicant mentioned family problems and health problems and during the ASY1 form the

Applicant indicated that he came to Ireland for medical assistance. The Applicant and the second named Respondent held that the

Applicant’s stated fear of the ruling party in Nigeria was undermined by his failure to mention this claim prior to interview. It calls into

question the credibility of this aspect.

6. The second named Respondent also held that if the authorities were interested in the Applicant they would have had ample

opportunity to detain him or confront him when he returned to Nigeria from Austria. She also held that the damage to the Applicant’s

eye even if it was accepted was politically motivated was only one act many years ago and did not amount to persecution.

7. The Applicant stated that his stepmother admitted to killing his mother in 1988 and when he was small his stepmother fought him

and he no longer has contact with his stepmother (not for 10 years) nor has he any contact with his father. The Applicant’s family

problems appear to have ceased when the Applicant left the family home. His fear of his stepmother is not well founded.

8. The second named Respondent also identified in the Applicant’s initial asylum application (ASY1) he had disclosed that he had

never previously applied for asylum in any other country and in his questionnaire he stated he never travelled outside Nigeria

previously and never applied for refugee status elsewhere nor had he ever lived in a country other than his country of origin. It was

only when the Applicant was asked about his travel to Austria that the Applicant admitted he had previously travelled to Austria and

he stated he had not mentioned applying for refugee status as he did not think “asylum was the same as refugee”. He stated he was

only in Austria for one year and some months but correspondence from the Austrian authorities stated that the Applicant applied for

asylum on the 4th November 2003 and disappeared from the central residence register nearly four years later on the 20th August

2007. The second named Respondent held that the Applicant’s lack of candour and his inconsistent account of his time in Austria

called into question the Applicant’s general credibility and reflected negatively on his stated claim.

9. The second named Respondent discussed the issue of his travel to Ireland and as the Applicant is an educated adult it was

reasonable to expect for him to provide a more consistent account of his travels to the State.

10. The second named Respondent identified that the Applicant stated that he entered Ireland in 2009. He only sought asylum in

October 2010 having been arrested by the police. The Applicant stated that he would have difficulty accessing medical evidence in

Nigeria and that appeared to be what was contained in the ASY1 form. Her conclusion was that having considered all the relevant

documentation including the notice of appeal, submissions, correspondence and all Country of Origin Information and correspondence

on file she affirmed the recommendation of the Refugee Applications Commissioner.

11. Counsel on behalf of the Applicant submitted that the matters contained in para. 5 (1) of the European Communities (Eligibility for

Protection) Regulations 2006 were breached particularly in relation to Country of Origin Information which was not consulted and that

applications were to be examined and decisions taken individually, objectively and impartially. It was argued that the claim that had

not been investigated either individually or objectively. Counsel quoted Cooke J. in MAMA v. Refugee Appeals Tribunal [2011] 2IR 729.

Submissions raised by the Applicant’s advisors were ignored

12. Counsel on behalf of the Respondent pointed to the issues relating to the failure of the Applicant to give a full account of his

movements since leaving Nigeria and flying to Austria. She quoted Cooke J. in I.R. v. The Refugee Appeals Tribunal [2009] IEHC 353 to

argue that the Applicant had provided no evidence to support his claim of any kind.

Courts decision

13. The very basis of the claim made by the Applicant is unclear. Issues relating to his application to Austria and his decision to leave

Austria and return to Nigeria and subsequently arriving in Ireland, being arrested after a number of months in my view lead to the

decision of the Refugee Appeals Tribunal. The second named Respondent commented: “The Applicant’s lack of candour and his

inconsistent account of his time in Austria called into question the Applicant’s general credibility and reflect negatively on his stated

claim”.

14. It appears to me that decision of the second named Respondent was reasonable and there is no basis in which this court should

overturn that decision.

15. I refuse the application and I dismiss the application for certiorari in this matter.