B (G O) v Min for Justice

JurisdictionIreland
JudgeMR. JUSTICE BIRMINGHAM
Judgment Date03 June 2008
Neutral Citation[2008] IEHC 229
CourtHigh Court
Date03 June 2008
B (G O) v Min for Justice

BETWEEN

G. O. B.
APPLICANT

AND

THE MINISTER FOR JUSTICE, EQUALITY AND LAW REFORM
RESPONDENT

[2008] IEHC 229

[1684 JR/2007]

THE HIGH COURT

IMMIGRATION

Deportation

Subsidiary protection refused - Use of country of origin information - Approach to be adopted - Issue of state protection in applicant's state - Whether properly considered - Issue of internal relocation - Whether decision made in breach of fair procedures - Whether deportation order should be quashed - O v Minister for Justice [2007] IEHC 169 (Unrep, Feeney J, 9/2/2007), Ali v Minister for Justice [2004] IEHC 108 (Unrep, Peart J, 26/5/2004), R (Obasi) v Secretary of State [2007] EWHC 381 (Admin), Susan O v Minister for Justice [2008] IEHC 107 (Unrep, Charleton J, 24/4/2008) considered - Relief refused (2007/1684JR - Birmingham J - 3/6/2008) [2008] IEHC 229

B(GO) v Minister for Justice

IMMIGRATION ACT 1999 S3

N (FR) & ORS (SUSAN O) v MIN JUSTICE & ORS UNREP CHARLETON 24.4.2008 2008 IEHC 107

KOUAYPE v MIN JUSTICE & ANOR UNREP CLARK 09.11.2005 2005 35 7364 2005 IEHC 380

DADA v MIN JUSTICE UNREP O'NEILL 3.5.2006 2006 14 2921 2006 IEHC 140

CANADA (A G) v WARD 1993 2 SCR 689

O (H) v REFUGEE APPEALS TRIBUNAL & MIN JUSTICE UNREP HEDIGAN 19.7.2007 2007 IEHC 299

A (OA) v MIN JUSTICE & REFUGEE APPEALS TRIBUNAL UNREP FEENEY 9.2.2007 2007 IEHC 169

RASHEED ALI v MIN JUSTICE & REFUGEE APPEALS TRIBUNAL UNREP PEART 26.5.2004 2004 2 244 2004 IEHC 108

H (A) & ORS (SUDAN) v SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT UNREP COURT OF APPEAL 4.4.2007 2007 EWCA CIV 297

H (A) & ORS (SUDAN) v SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT 2007 3 WLR 832

JANUZI v SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT 2006 2 AC 426

1

The applicant in this case is a national of Nigeria. On 6 th October, 2005, he sought to enter this State. At Dublin Airport he was found to be travelling on a Nigerian passport containing false UK Home Office stamps. He was subsequently charged and convicted in that regard. The applicant has made two asylum claims under a name other than his own, that of Lawrence Michael Bamidele. The applicant now says that the passport on which he was travelling belonged to his brother. The applicant accepts that he entered the State on a false passport, but insofar as errors have continued to dog his application, he attributes these to the actions of the Garda National Immigration Bureau. Indeed, he suggests that he signed a particular document in the name of Lawrence at the request of GNIB.

2

In an affidavit sworn in the course of the present proceedings, the applicant apologises for his actions in seeking to enter the State under false documentation and appears to accept that his actions have given rise to the confusion in relation to his application that have been a feature of the case. On his behalf, it has been suggested that his actions do not represent a serious lack of candour and that his actions are notall that unusual in the context of asylum claims. Regrettably, a lack of candour and forthrightness and, indeed, plain dishonesty are far from unknown in the asylum process. That notwithstanding, I am unable to take as sanguine a view in relation to the applicant's actions.

Factual Background
3

The basis for the applicant's asylum claim was that his father was an Oba (King) in the Yoruba tribe in Nigeria, but had refused to exercise his functions by reason of his Christian beliefs. In particular, the applicant's father refused to participate in a ceremony that would have involved human sacrifice. Thereafter, both of the applicant's parents, as well as other family members, were killed in a car accident. The applicant attributes the accident to the exercise of Juju (supernatural powers) by figures who disapproved of his father's actions in refusing to participate in the act of sacrifice.

4

When the applicant attended his father's funeral, he was informed that he was to inherit his father's position as Oba. The applicant says that as a Christian, he was not prepared to take on this role and that rather than do so, he decided to flee his home village, making his way to Lagos where he stayed for a number of months.

Procedural Background
5

The applicant's claim for asylum was considered in the normal way by the Refugee Applications Commissioner ("RAC") which, on 10th November, 2005, recommended that he not be declared to be a refugee. In reaching this decision, the RAC concluded that the applicant's account of his fear of persecution was notcredible. In addition, the RAC did not accept that State protection was not available, and saw internal relocation as an option.

6

From this recommendation, the applicant appealed and an oral hearing was held on 17 th January, 2006. Once more, an adverse view was formed on the applicant's credibility. I think it is fair to say that the Tribunal Member appears to have been particularly unimpressed with the applicant.

7

Following consideration of the matters required by section 3 of the Immigration Act 1999, the Minister decided to make a deportation order and an order was in fact signed by the then Minister on 29 th May, 2006. The Refugee Legal Service (RLS) made subsequent representations on behalf of the applicant on 18 th May, 2006 but, following consideration thereof, the Minister took the view that these representations contained nothing new, and affirmed the deportation order. Before making the deportation order, the Minister was obliged to consider, and from the papers it would appear actually did consider, the question of refoulement. The applicant was informed of the making of the deportation order by letter dated 17 th October, 2006.

The Application for subsidiary Protection
8

By letter dated 7 th November, 2006, the applicant was informed that the Minister was giving an undertaking not to deport him, pending a decision on his eligibility for subsidiary protection. An application was made on 24 th November, 2006. To a significant extent, the application rehearsed issues that had already been determined, though it goes somewhat further in that it states that the townspeople of his home village had put up a reward for his capture. In these circumstances, it was contended that he was not in a position to access meaningful and effective protectionand that it was not reasonable or possible for him to relocate internally. The point was also made that the applicant did not have the means to effectively relocate safely in Nigeria.

9

The applicant's submission confirmed that he was relying on all country of origin information already submitted and the opportunity was taken to submit an amount of additional documentation comprising an Internal Displacement Monitoring Centre (IDMC) report, entitled "Nigeria at a heightened risk of violence and displacement ahead of 2007 elections", and an Amnesty International website report of 2006, in relation to Nigeria. I think it is reasonable to categorise these documents as being general in character; they are not specific to persons in the position in which the applicant claims to find himself.

10

In considering the application for subsidiary protection, the officials charged with the task of examining the matter accessed an amount of additional documentation. This comprised of:

a a. An Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada (Country of Origin Research Unit) paper entitled " Nigeria, the King of Erio-Igboglia; the procedure for becoming King; the consequences of refusing to assume the crown; and state protection available to those who refuse to become Kings."

b b. " Nigeria information on the Administrative Hierarchy within the Euroba tribe including the difference between ruling houses, Chiefs, OBAS, Elders, whether they can refuse a title, initiation rites surrounding the institution of Kingship, the influence of OBAS among the local community and the present Governments attitude towards them."

c c. " Nigeria; state protection available to potential victims of ritual violence or individuals threatened by cult members since the change of Government in late May, 1999."

11

In contrast to the more general character documents submitted by the applicant, these documents are more closely focused on the issue requiring resolution.

12

On 18th September, 2007, the Minister decided that the applicant was not eligible for subsidiary protection and the applicant was notified of this fact on the same day. On 31 st October, 2007, a deportation order was again signed. The applicant was informed of this fact by letter dated 6 th November, 2007. On 13 th November, 2007, the applicant failed to present as required and was thereafter classed as an evader. While the matter was not explored in any great detail, some genuine confusion may have surrounded the failure to present.

13

Be that as it may, the present proceedings were instituted on 28 th January, 2008 . On 21st February, 2008, the applicant was granted leave to bring a challenge to that decision on six grounds, but having regard to the subsequent decision of Charlton J. in Susan O v The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform [2008] IEHC 107, one of these grounds - relating to the fact that the Minister had accessed additional country of origin information without reference to the applicant - was not pursued.

The Context of the Current Proceedings
14

Before considering the details of this challenge, it is appropriate to set the current proceedings in context. The Minister's decision on subsidiary protection comes well on, indeed very well on, in the history of the applicant's interaction with the State. Speaking in the context of a challenge to a deportation order in Kouaype v The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform [2005] IEHC 380, Clarke J. madethe point that the grounds for a successful challenge to a deportation order were limited. In particular,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
39 cases
  • M.E.O. (Nigeria) v The International Protection Appeals Tribunal ; U.O. (Nigeria) v The International Protection Appeals Tribunal
    • Ireland
    • High Court
    • 7 December 2018
    ...In this situation, one has to bear in mind the point made by Birmingham J. in G.O.B. v. Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform [2008] IEHC 229 (Unreported, High Court, 3rd June, 2008) that decision-makers are ‘ dealing with the country situation in different jurisdictions the whole ......
  • M (N.F) (Minor) v Refugee Appeals Tribunal
    • Ireland
    • High Court
    • 21 November 2008
    ...rational and reasonable and reached in accordance with fair procedures - Presumption of state protection - GOB v Minister for Justice [2008] IEHC 229 (Unrep, Birmingham J, 3/6/2008) applied; Olatunji v Refugee Appeals Tribunal [2006] IEHC 113 (Unrep, Finlay Geoghegan J, 7/4/2006), Imoh v Re......
  • K.O.O. v Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform and Another
    • Ireland
    • High Court
    • 15 October 2008
    ...TRIBUNAL & MIN FOR JUSTICE UNREP HIGH FINLAY-GEOGHEGAN 14.5.2004 2004/49/11175 B (GO) v MIN FOR JUSTICE UNREP HIGH BIRMINGHAM 3.6.2008 2008 IEHC 229 O (H) v REFUGEE APPEALS TRIBUNAL & ANOR UNREP HIGH HEDIGAN 19.7.2007 2007/45/9473 Z v MIN FOR JUSTICE & ORS 2002 2 IR 135 CANADA (AG) v WARD ......
  • D (K) [Nigeria] v Refugee Appeals Tribunal & Min for Justice
    • Ireland
    • High Court
    • 1 November 2013
    ...Clark J, 4/10/2012); BOB v Refugee Appeals Tribunal [2013] IEHC 187, (Unrep, MacEochaidh J, 2/5/2013); GOB v Minister for Justice [2008] IEHC 229, (Unrep, Birmingham J, 3/6/2008); SBE v Refugee Appeals Tribunal [2010] IEHC 133, (Unrep, Cooke J, 25/2/2010); CE v Minister for Justice [2012] I......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT