A Nigerian mother who claimed her father-in-law was a “fanatical Muslim” and her two sons would be forced to become Muslims if the family were sent back to Nigeria has lost her High Court challenge to the refusal to grant them refugee status here.
Among a series of claims, the woman, a Christian, alleged her father-in-law was an Imam who had disapproved of his son marrying her when she became pregnant, had influence over criminal gangs and on one occasion sent thugs to beat her family.
She claimed her father-in-law persecuted her over an eight year period from her marriage in 1999 until she left Nigeria in 2007 with one of her sons. Her second son was born in Ireland.
She had sought refugee status for herself and her sons on grounds of a well-founded fear of persecution if returned to Nigeria.
In his reserved judgment, Mr Justice Kevin Cross ruled the woman and children had failed to established the necessary “substantial grounds” for judicial review of the November 2008 decision of the Refugee Appeals Tribunal refusing refugee status.
While expressing some criticisms of how the tribunal member set out his decision, the judge said it was clear the tribunal refused refugee status on grounds the woman would be safe if she relocated to the Ogun State district of Nigeria, where she had moved for a time and which was some 200km from her father-in-law’s home.
The Tribunal had said he was “not entirely satisfied” the woman was persecuted in Lagos but added, accepting that she was, relocation was appropriate in the case.
Before reaching that decision, the tribunal had reviewed the evidence, including the woman’s claims about her father-in-law, the judge said. The fact the decision did not refer to additional claims by the woman that her father-in-law was a member of a political party did not render the decision flawed.
However, the reasons given by the tribunal member for his comments concerning the woman’s credibility were unsatisfactory, incomplete and not adequate, the judge also found.
The Tribunal had not attempted “any rational analysis” on the issue of crediblity.
In those circumstances, the statement by the tribunal related to credibility could not have any effect and should not be used against the woman in any deportation proceedings or in her application for subsidiary protection, he said.
Given his criticisms of the manner in which the tribunal decison was set out, and the purported finding on credibility “without any attempt at rational analysis”, the judge also indicated that the usual rule that costs go to the winning side may not necessarily apply.
