Freely Available British and Irish Public Legal Information
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
High Court of Ireland Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> High Court of Ireland Decisions >> MH (Nigeria) -v- Minister for Justice & Law Reform & ors [2015] IEHC 430 (08 July 2015)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/ie/cases/IEHC/2015/H430.html
Cite as: [2015] IEHC 430
[New search] [Help]
Judgment
| ||||||||||||||||
Neutral Citation [2015] IEHC 430 THE HIGH COURT JUDICIAL REVIEW [2010 No. 1555 J.R.] BETWEEN M.H. [NIGERIA] APPLICANT AND
MINISTER FOR JUSTICE AND LAW REFORM, REFUGEE APPEALS TRIBUNAL, ATTORNEY GENERAL RESPONDENTS JUDGMENT of Ms. Justice Stewart delivered on the 8th day of July, 2015 1. This is a telescoped application for leave to seek judicial review of the decision of the Refugee Appeals Tribunal dated 4th November, 2010, affirming the negative recommendation of the Offices of the Refugee Applications Commissioner, that the applicant not be declared a refugee. 2. A preliminary issue arose with regard to the necessary extension of time for the applicant to initiate these proceedings. The delay was minimal and explained by the applicant on affidavit. The respondents did not take any issue with the explanation provided and, in the circumstances I grant the necessary extension of time. BACKGROUND 4. In 2003, he states that his partner became pregnant and, because the couple were not married, she fled to Ireland for fear of persecution under Islamic law. The applicant’s son was born in Ireland in 2003 and is an Irish citizen. 5. On the 3rd April, 2007, the Christian group, including the applicant, was attacked by the hisbah group. The applicant managed to flee; however, people were killed. The applicant further states that when he returned to his home, it had been burnt down. When he reported the matter to the police he was advised to leave the area. As a result, the applicant states, leaflets bearing his name, claiming he was against the imposition of Islamic law, meant that he could not relocate. The applicant travelled to Lagos with the intention of leaving the country. He states that while in Lagos he complained to police about the alleged persecution he had suffered in the north of the country. The police filed a report. 6. The applicant decided to travel to Ireland because his partner and son were in this State, and he states that he thought it would be a safe country. He states that he paid an agent 170,000 naira for travel to Ireland. He left Nigeria on 25th June, 2007, and travelled by air, transiting through London, then onwards to Belfast and by bus from Belfast to Dublin. The applicant has a history of colorectal cancer, having suffered, and being treated for, the first occurrence in 2001 in Nigeria and the second occurrence in December, 2008 in Ireland. 7. The applicant presented at the Office of the Refugee Applications Commissioner (ORAC) on 26th June, 2007, and completed an ASY1 form on that date. The applicant was interviewed by the ORAC pursuant to s.11 of the Refugee Act 1996 (as amended) on 20th July, 2007. By letter dated 26th July, 2007, and a report of that date, the commissioner recommended that the applicant not be declared a refugee. A notice of appeal was issued by the applicant’s solicitors on 13th August, 2007, and the applicant was interviewed by the Refugee Appeals Tribunal (RAT) on 13th July, 2010. IMPUGNED DECISION 9. Further, the tribunal member found that the applicant “failed to provide any reasonable explanation as to why he could not relocate to live in Lagos when this matter was put to him at the hearing”. APPLICANT’S SUBMISSIONS 11. The applicant submitted that this case is differentiable from other cases where the persecution claim is based on the applicant having a particular medical condition. This applicant is not claiming persecution as a result of him having cancer. The applicant’s claim of persecution arises from a different set of circumstances, and, the applicant submitted, it is well established that he forms part of a social group. The element of the tribunal decision being challenged in these proceedings is the manner in which the tribunal member approached the question of internal relocation. On p.17 of the tribunal decision (p.29 of the booklet) it states as follows:
RESPONDENTS’ SUBMISSIONS 14. The respondents pointed to the fact that the applicant had already received treatment in Nigeria for cancer. The applicant provided medical documents that showed he had been treated for cancer and country of origin information shows that treatment facilities are available in Lagos. The respondents relied on the principles set out by Feeney J. in Agbonlahor & ors. v. Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform & anor. [2007] IEHC 166, where it held that an applicant cannot claim a right to remain in the host state because of a lower standard of medical treatment in the home state. Counsel further submitted that if the Convention were to have included such a requirement, state parties would not have been willing to commit. 15. The respondents argued that when the feasibility of internal relocation was put to the applicant, he failed to provide a reasonable excuse for not being able to relocate to Lagos. Country of origin information does state that clinical services are poor but this is not a sufficient reason for the applicant to be declared a refugee. The respondents submitted that the internal relocation finding complies with regulation 7 of the European Communities (Eligibility for Protection) Regulations 2006 (S.I. 518 of 2006), and the requirements of K.D. (Nigeria) (supra), in that it is an ‘even if’ finding. The tribunal member does not find that the applicant has suffered persecution but even if he had, he could safely relocate; the area is identified and it is put to the applicant at interview, as per the legal requirements. 16. The respondents submitted that the applicant does not satisfy the ‘exceptional circumstances’ as identified in the case law opened by counsel for the applicant. Although the applicant has had serious medical issues, relocation would neither be unreasonable nor unduly harsh, according to the respondents. Treatment is available in Nigeria; the applicant has received such treatment in the past; and country of origin information proves that such treatment is available, particularly in Lagos, although not to the same standards as here in Ireland. DECISION 18. Counsel for the applicant mounts the challenge in relation to the application of the wrong test in respect of internal relocation, by suggesting that the tribunal member was seeking to be satisfied that the absence of medical treatment of a suitable nature in Nigeria would amount to persecution if he were to relocate to live in a city such as Lagos. However, I am satisfied that the tribunal member looked at the matter in accordance with the test laid down on K.D. (Nigeria) and, in particular, stated at p.29 of the booklet:
21. The last ground of challenge to the tribunal member’s decision is the allegation that the tribunal member failed to properly consider country of origin information. Again, I can find no substance to bear out that assertion. It is clear from reading the decision that the tribunal member gave extensive consideration to the oral evidence given by the applicant, the country of origin reports, the medical reports and considered the written submissions dated 9th July, 2010, submitted on behalf of the applicant in support of his claim of sectarian violence between Christians and Muslims in northern Nigeria. Having considered all of this information, the tribunal member determined that the applicant, although demonstrating subjective fears of persecution, had not objectively demonstrated a fear of persecution for a Convention reason. 22. I am satisfied that decision of the tribunal member was reasoned and rational for the reasons set out above and I would accordingly refuse leave. |