Tata Bewaji Manuel-Rose v Minister for Justice, Equality and Refugee Appeals Tribunal

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: MR. JUSTICE T.C. SMYTH
• Judgment Date: 02 October 2002
• Neutral Citation: 2002 WJSC-HC 3884
• Date: 02 October 2002
• Court: High Court

2002 WJSC-HC 3884

THE HIGH COURT

No. 160JR/2002

MANUEL-ROSE v. MINISTER FOR JUSTICE & REFUGEE APPEALS TRIBUNAL

(JUDICIAL REVIEW)

Between/

TATA BEWAJI MANUEL-ROSE

Applicant

-and-

THE MINISTER FOR JUSTICE, EQUALITY AND LAW REFORM and JAMES NICHOLSON sitting as the REFUGEE APPEALS TRIBUNAL

Respondents

Citations:

REFUGEE ACT 1996 S11(2)

REFUGEE ACT 1996 S12(1)

REFUGEE ACT 1996 S13(1)

REFUGEE ACT 1996 S12(4)(A)

REFUGEE ACT 1996 S12(4)(C)

Z v MIN FOR JUSTICE 2002 2 ILRM 215

REFUGEE ACT 1996 (APPEALS) REGULATIONS 2000 SI 342/2000

O V MIN FOR JUSTICE & ORS (BABY O CASE) UNREP KEANE 6.6.2002

ZGNATEV V MIN FOR JUSTICE UNREP FINNEGAN 29.3.2001

HORVATH V SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT 2000 WLR 379 2000 3 AER 577 2000 INLR 15

HOPE HANLON LETTER PAR 10

UNHCR HANDBOOK ON PROCEDURES AND CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING REFUGEE STATUS 1992 PAR 204

QUIJANO V SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT 1997 IMM AR 227

Synopsis:

IMMIGRATION

Asylum

Manifestly unfounded - Refugee appeals commissioner - Whether application related to criteria for granting of refugee status - Whether onus on second respondent to satisfy itself that claim is manifestly unfounded - Exercise of discretion by decision maker - Whether decision to proceed with appeal on basis of claim as manifestly unfounded unreasonable in light of evidence - Whether absence of oral hearing amounts to denial of natural and constitutional justice - Whether onus on decision maker to prove existence of countervailing internal protection - Refugee Act 1996 (2002/160JR - Smyth J - 2/10/02)

Tata Bewaji Manuel-Rose v Minister for Justice, Equality and Refugee Appeals

Facts: the applicant’s claim for asylum was treated as manifestly unfounded by the Refugee Applications Commissioner and his appeal proceeded on that basis to the second respondent. He contended, inter alia, that the second respondent erred in law in proceeding with the appeal on the basis that it was manifestly unfounded as there was an onus on the Tribunal to satisfy itself, independently of the Commissioner, that it was an appropriate case to be treated as manifestly unfounded and that there was some evidence before the second respondent that the appellant may have been persecuted for a Convention reason. Relying on the Michigan Guidelines on the internal protection alternative, the applicant also contended that the second respondent had not proven the existence of countervailing internal protection within Nigeria.

Held by Smyth J in refusing leave that the absence of an oral hearing does not, of itself, mean that there has been a denial of natural and constitutional justice. On the second issue that, there was evidence before the second respondent upon which it was entitled to come to the decision that the applicant’s claim for asylum was manifestly unfounded. On the third issue, that the Michigan Guidelines on countervailing internal protection were predicated on the existence of a well founded fear of persecution for a Convention reason and that did not arise in the applicant’s case and that even if they did the obligation on decision makers in this respect is to merely keep themselves informed of the situation pertaining in the country of origin.

1 JUDGMENT OF MR. JUSTICE T.C. SMYTH DELIVERED ON WEDNESDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF OCTOBER 2002

2 I hereby certify the following to be a true and accurate transcript of my shorthand notes in the above-named judgment.

APPEARANCES

For the Applicant:

For the Respondent:

MS. BARRINGTON BL

3 JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED AS FOLLOWS

MR. JUSTICE SMYTH: The Applicant is a Nigerian national, a male

4 person, whose stated date of birth is 6th April 1980, and who at the date of his arrival in the State on 30th August 1999 was single. His ethnic origin is of the Yoruba tribe or people in Nigeria. He paid what is euphemistically called or referred to as a "travel facilitator" 200,000 Niara. In interview, he said he himself paid $2,000 and his uncle provided the balance. He had been at primary school from 1984 to 1990, at secondary school from 1990 to 1996, and was at the University of Ibadan from 1997 until his departure from his country of origin. He stated that for three years he was employed on a part-time basis by Niger Dock Football Club of Ibadan as a soccer footballer; he also was employed as a male model.

5 In the course of answering questions in the standard form of Questionnaire referable to applications for asylum, he stated he had a friend in Ireland, ie, a female person who had been married to a king, and upon being widowed was about to be forced into marrying the deceased king's successor (referred to as the incoming king). This widow is the Applicant's sister. Furthermore, it would appear that the widow in her flight took with her three children. The actions of the widow apparently caused serious aggravation in a tribal society and the Applicant's case for fleeing the country was because he felt his family had been targeted for breaking with tradition and that in a most menacing manner, giving four instances of untoward events.

6 The importance of answering questions fully and truthfully was made clear in a number of documents acknowledged as received by the Applicant on 31st August 1999, as well as in the signed preface to the Questionnaire and Interview Report. In the course of the interview, it became clear that the Applicant was not being truthful and sought to explain these untruths by blaming his sister who was living in Ireland with a lover by or with whom she had a child. When asked at interview why did he leave the jobs he had in Nigeria, he said:-

"Because my life was at risk and I had to flee the country. If I was in Nigeria now I would be playing football and doing part-time modelling."

7 During the interview, the following exchange took place:-

"Q. If I were to ask you to tell me on which of the following grounds you feared persecution, race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion — what would your response be to that question?

A. It is none of those grounds — it is only to do with family problems."

8 The report of the interview indicated that the source of his information or what caused him to be apprehensive was a girlfriend of his and that whatever antagonism there was towards him was because of his providing information to "the press". When questioned as to whether he could not have moved and relocated elsewhere in Nigeria, his response was:-

"Even if you were to stay somewhere in Africa, not Nigeria, they would kill you. My face was put on a paper. I would not be arrested or put in jail. I would be shot."

9 Earlier in the interview, when asked where did he work as a male model, he answered:-

"At Abacus Model Agency at Ibadan. Then I was at National Geographical Society — travelling to Ghana, Togo, Burkino, Faso (which is close to Mali and Lagos) and most places in Nigeria."

10 In the matter of his sports activity, he was asked if he visited his sister in Tallaght - Firhouse, he replied:-

"Once in a while as I go to gym in order to keep fit for a football trial or to become a male model."

11 His sense of self-importance and his ability are probably best exemplified when being asked about his football career as a soccer player in Nigeria, when he answered:-

"Yes. I am very good — probably one of the...