O (P) [Nigeria] v Min for Justice & Refugee Appeals Tribunal (Twomey)

JurisdictionIreland
JudgeMr. Justice Ryan
Judgment Date22 October 2010
Neutral Citation[2010] IEHC 513
CourtHigh Court
Date22 October 2010

[2010] IEHC 513

THE HIGH COURT

[No. 507 J.R./2008]
O (P) [Nigeria] v Min for Justice & Refugee Appeals Tribunal (Twomey)
JUDICIAL REVIEW

BETWEEN

P. O. [NIGERIA]
APPLICANT

AND

MINISTER FOR JUSTICE AND LAW REFORM AND MAJELLA TWOMEY SITTING AS THE REFUGEE APPEALS TRIBUNAL
RESPONDENTS

O (AB) & ORS v MIN FOR JUSTICE & GARDA NATIONAL IMMIGRATION BUREAU UNREP BIRMINGHAM 27.6.2008 2008/47/10090 2008 IEHC 191

CANADA (AG) v WARD 1993 2 SCR 689 1993 103 DLR (4TH) 1

IMMIGRATION LAW

Asylum

Credibility - Internal relocation - State protection - Burden of proof - Substantial grounds - UNHCR guidelines on international protection - Whether error in consideration of viability of internal relocation - Whether onus on respondent to establish alternative options - Whether country of origin information should have been expressly considered - Whether error in assessing applicant's credibility - Whether relevant material taken into account - O(AB) v Minister for Justice [2008] IEHC 191, (Unrep, Birmingham J, 27/6/2008); Canada (Attorney General) v Ward [1993] 2 SCR 689 considered - Leave refused (2008/507JR - Ryan J - 22/10/2010) [2010] IEHC 513

O(P) v Refugee Appeals Tribunal and Minister for Justice and Law Reform

1

1. This is an application for leave to bring judicial review proceedings in respect of a decision of the Refugee Appeals Tribunal dated the 14 th February, 2008, whereby it affirmed the recommendation of the Refugee Applications Commissioner that the applicant should not be declared a refugee.

2

2. The applicant's case is, first,that the Tribunal should have expressly considered certain country of origin information, namely, an article from the "afrol News" website entitled "Half of Nigeria's women experience domestic violence". Second, that the Tribunal erred in its consideration of internal relocation because it did not -in accordance with the UNHCR- (a) thoroughly investigate whether relocation was a realistic option; (b) consider the social and economic conditions in any specific location and (c) identify a specific location where it would be possible for to the applicant to relocate. The third is that the Tribunal erred in assessing the applicant's credibility.

3

3. The Tribunal's decision is also based on three grounds: the applicant's lack of credibility in a number of respects, the viability of internal relocation and the availability of state protection. The applicant through her counsel makes arguments against the credibility findings and the respondent dismisses them as nitpicking point by point deconstruction of a kind that is impermissible in these circumstances. As to the viability of internal relocation, the UNHCR Guidelines place the onus of establishing this on the Tribunal and the claim should be seen in its factual context with some particular location in mind where the asylum seeker will be safe. It is not enough simply to say that the applicant should go to some other part of the country but rather that one should have some particular place in mind.

4

4. I turn first to the question of state protection. The onus on this matter rests on the applicant, who makes the case that she is at risk from the actions of non-state actors and that the state protection available in Nigeria is insufficient. It seems to me that she has a relatively high burden of proof in this claim. The issues and the law in this area were analysed by Birmingham J. in the case of A.B.O. v. Minister for Justice (Unreported, High Court, 27 th June, 2008) [2008] I.E.H.C. 191, where he deals with state protection at paras. 29 to 38 and subsequently. Now it is of course clear that the role of the Court is to consider whether it was reasonably open to the Tribunal to reach the conclusion it did. On the test in the Canadian case of Canada (Attorney General) v. Ward [1993] 2 S.C.R. 689, as endorsed by Birmingham J. in the A.B.O. case I think...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • J. O. v Minister for Justice and Law Reform and Others
    • Ireland
    • High Court
    • 16 April 2015
    ...of Nigeria and that internal relocation was a viable option. The decisions of Ryan J. in O (P) [Nigeria] v. Refugee Appeals Tribunal [2010] IEHC 513 and Clark J. in K.D. [Nigeria] v. Refugee Appeals Tribunal [2013] IEHC 481 support this 16 16. The Tribunal Member identified an area for prop......
  • D (K) [Nigeria] v Refugee Appeals Tribunal & Min for Justice
    • Ireland
    • High Court
    • 1 November 2013
    ...Hogan J, 11/1/2012); WMM v Refugee Appeals Tribunal [2009] IEHC 1, (Unrep, Cooke J, 11/11/2009); PO (Nigeria) v Minister for Justice [2010] IEHC 513, (Unrep, Ryan J, 22/10/2013) and DT v Minister for Justice [2009] IEHC 482, (Unrep, Cooke J, 3/11/2009) considered - European Communities (Eli......
  • N (A) (an Infant) v Refugee Appeals Tribunal and Others
    • Ireland
    • High Court
    • 16 October 2015
    ...available to her was detrimental to her claim. In this regard, counsel referred to the dictum of Ryan J. in P.O. v. Minister for Justice [2010] IEHC 513, at para. 8 he stated:- "I turn finally to the question of credibility. Here I do rather agree with the respondents' submission to the eff......
  • B.B.A. (India) v The International Protection Appeals Tribunal
    • Ireland
    • High Court
    • 14 December 2018
    ...which fall in his personal sphere’. That amounts to the well-established shared burden: see O.P. v. Minister for Justice and Equality [2010] IEHC 513 (Unreported, Ryan P., 22nd October, 2010), K.D. (Nigeria) v. Refugee Appeals Tribunal [2013] IEHC 481 [2013] 1 I.R. 448, E.I. v. Minister for......
  • 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