N (O)(A Minor) and Others v Refugee Appeals Tribunal and Others
| Jurisdiction | Ireland |
| Judge | Ms. Justice Faherty |
| Judgment Date | 22 September 2015 |
| Neutral Citation | [2015] IEHC 585 |
| Court | High Court |
| Date | 22 September 2015 |
[2015] IEHC 585
THE HIGH COURT
BETWEEN
AND
Asylum, Immigration & Nationality – The Refugee Act 1996 – Appeal against the decision of the Refugee Appeals Tribunal – Order of certiorari – Fear of persecution – Whether evidence of applicant credible – Severance of credibility claim – Assessment of internal location – Regulation 7 of the European Communities (Eligibility for Protection) Regulations 2006 – Reasoned decision
Facts: In the present telescoped hearing, the first named applicant sought an order of certiorari for quashing the decision of the first named respondent affirming the recommendation of the Refugee Applications Commissioner that the first named applicant not be declared a refugee. The applicant contended that she had fear of being persecuted in the country of origin on account of imputed political opinion and involvement in certain activities.
Ms. Justice Faherty granted leave and an order of certiorari to the first named applicant. The Court held that the first named respondent had erred in law by making two adverse credibility findings against the first named applicant. The Court, however, upheld the findings that the first named applicant had not made a genuine effort to substantiate her application. The Court opined that in a case where there were positive and adverse credible findings, an order reversing the findings of the decision-maker would be made only if the relevant finding was a part of the core claim of the first named applicant and thus severance of that part would not be appropriate. The Court found that since the core claim of the first named applicant pertained to fear of being tortured and beaten in the country of origin, Nigeria, the assertion by the first named respondent that the first named applicant had always been in Greece would be detrimental to the credibility findings. The Court held that the first named respondent had erred in law by not specifically mentioning about the specific place of internal relocation to the first named applicant as envisaged under reg.7 of the European Communities (Eligibility for Protection) Regulations 2006 keeping in mind the personal circumstances of the applicant along with the general circumstances prevalent in that area.
1. This is a telescoped hearing wherein the first-named applicant seeks an order of certioriari quashing the decision of the Refugee Appeals Tribunal which affirmed the recommendation of the Refugee Applications Commissioner not to declare her a refugee.
2. A short extension of time is required in this case. Having regard to the contents of the first-named applicant's affidavit, and being satisfied that no prejudice accrued to the respondents, the extension is granted.
3. The applications of the second, third, fourth and fifth-named applicants are conceded by the respondents and accordingly, leave is granted and the court makes an order of certiorari in respect of the decisions rendered by the first-named respondent in respect of the second, third, fourth, and fifth-named applicants. Each of these matters is hereby remitted to the first-named respondent for de novo consideration by a different Tribunal Member.
4. The first named applicant is referred to hereafter in the judgment as "the applicant". The applicant is a Nigerian national of the Ijaw tribe. She is a married woman with four children, three of whom were born in Greece and one in Ireland. The applicant claims that she is at risk of persecution in Nigeria on grounds of imputed political opinion arising out of her husband's activities as a community youth leader and activist in Port Harcourt, Rivers State, Nigeria and by virtue of her own activities in tandem with those of her husband.
5. The applicant's account of what led her to seek asylum is as follows. Her community in Port Harcourt suffered greatly as a result of environmental damage caused by an oil company whose activities, the applicant claimed, had succeeded in destroying the environment. The damaged environment had caused the local river to become polluted and some of the fish stock upon which the community relied died as a result. Moreover, the environmental damage to the river led to flooding resulting in peoples' living conditions becoming precarious. The local people had suffered greatly as a result. Promises which had been made to local people had come to naught. The applicant's husband, who was the local youth leader, sought redress from the local government chairman on behalf of the poorer local residents of Port Harcourt. However, he was told to cease his complaints. Her husband then engineered a mass protest which involved local people and boys from the village who protested outside the home of the local government chairman. The applicant herself had called on women in the village to take part in organised protests. The applicant claimed that as a result of the protests, a number of the villagers, including some of the young boys who had protested, were taken away. Some nine people had been kidnapped by local security forces. The applicant attributed their disappearance to the Joint Task Force (JTF), which is a combined force of police, military and state security service personnel which operated in the Niger Delta. While some of the people were released, the applicant did not know what happened to some of the others and she feared for their lives. Some time after this, on 12 th March 2009, when the applicant returned home after purchasing items in the market, she discovered that her house, together with a number of other houses, had been burned down. She was advised that she and her husband were being sought by the JFT. All of the contents within the house were destroyed. People told the applicant that the JTF were responsible. The applicant went immediately to collect her children who were being looked after by a family friend. She then sought help from a priest, Godwin, who was a family friend, only to discover that he had gone to the Cameroon to preach the gospel. Nonetheless, she stayed in the local Catholic church for some days until local people put her and her children on a fishing boat that brought her to Cameroon. She was then taken to the parish in Cameroon where Godwin was working as a priest. Through Godwin she was introduced to an agent, Matthew, who said he would take her to safety. The applicant understood that Godwin had secured the finance for the journey. The applicant stated that she was taken to an airport in Cameroon and after a journey which took six hours she landed in another country which may have been France. She was accompanied by Matthew through Immigration Control and showed the Immigration officials in France a red document which she believed was a passport. She then returned the document to Matthew. On arrival in Dublin, she experienced no problems at immigration and applied there and then for asylum. Again, she returned the documents to Matthew and did not see him subsequently.
6. It is not in contention that, prior to her claim of fleeing Nigeria in April 2009, the applicant had a prior migration and asylum history. Her account of this history is as follows: In 2002, the applicant went to Greece for a holiday. As she was pregnant when she embarked on this journey, she did not wish to make a return journey to Nigeria. Her first child was born in Greece on 15 th November 2002. She remained in Greece until 2003 but could not recall the date of her return to Nigeria. That return journey was facilitated by a friend of the applicant's family who worked on a ship who allowed the applicant and her child to travel as passengers. She did not have to pay and her friend helped her with the finances. She recalled that the journey lasted two weeks. The ship arrived at the port of Mpa, in Lagos. The applicant disembarked with a "Sailor's Passport".
7. The applicant claimed that she returned to Greece in 2004 in the following circumstances: She had been living in Jos, Northern Nigeria, and became terrified by the communal violence that occurred between Christians and Muslims. As it was impossible to travel overland to Port Harcourt in southern Nigeria because the roads were blocked, the applicant took an overland route back to Greece. She and her young child walked from Ibadan through the bush to Chad. Arriving in Chad she then travelled by van which brought her further north; she was not sure what other countries she visited. She then took a ship that brought her to Turkey although she could not recall the port at which the ship docked. From Turkey she took another ship that brought her to Greece. On entry into Greece she had no passport. She made an application for refugee status in Greece but this was rejected. She was told to leave Greece but did not immediately comply with this request, remaining there for three years. During this time her husband made a visit to Greece and he remained for some months but then decided to return to Nigeria. The applicant departed Greece for Nigeria in 2007. She again made a return journey by ship. She had been working in a market in Greece and was able to afford a fare of €500 that brought her from Greece to Nigeria. The vessel that carried her to Greece was a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
B.W. v Refugee Appeals Tribunal
...references the submissions that were made. 49 I have also considered the judgment of Faherty J. in O.N. v. Refugee Appeals Tribunal [2015] IEHC 585 which reflects an approach taken in a number of similar cases. In that case the court acknowledged that ‘ the legality of a decision could none......