Ireland - High Court, 25 February 2010, S.B.E. v Refugee Appeals Tribunal [2010] IEHC 133

Facts:

The applicant was from Nigeria and claimed to have been the victim of violent attacks by activists in the Movement for a Sovereign Biafra (Massob). He claimed that his wife had been kidnapped and his shop had been vandalised. In part of its decision the Tribunal stated its opinion that “the applicant could have relocated in another part of Nigeria which has 130 million citizens.” There were also a number of significant credibility findings in relation to the account told by the applicant.  

Decision & reasoning:

On judicial review the Court (Cooke J.) concluded that given the credibility findings made by the Tribunal, the Tribunal’s decision would not be overturned. However, the Court noted that were the issue of internal relocation the only basis for the Tribunal’s decision, it would have been quashed as this finding was “devoid of any substantiation by reference to the facts of the case, the circumstances of the applicant and of his family or to the nature of the threat of persecution which relocation would serve to avoid”.

The Court stated:

“It is well settled law both generally in the application of the Geneva Convention and of the 1996 Act and specifically by virtue of [Article 8 of the Qualification Directive], that a finding that internal relocation will provide protection involves a two- fold consideration:

(a) First, the identification - if only in general terms - of an area or place in the country of origin which can reasonably be expected to be free of the particular source of persecution from which the applicant requires protection; and

(b) Secondly, an inquiry sufficient to confirm that a relocation there is feasible and reasonable to expect of the applicant (even if it involves hardship,) having regard to the personal circumstances of the applicant and of his family.

This second consideration is relevant because there may well be reasons of ethnicity, religion, political affiliation or family history why an applicant might not be able to move to or be safe in a given relocation and that can only be decided if the area or place is identified and has been made known to the applicant. In this case no particular area of possible relocation was mentioned either by the Tribunal member or in the section 13 report so the applicant has never had it identified. No consideration was given as to whether there were areas outside Anambra state where Massob was active and if so which areas they were. This omission is all the more surprising in this decision because the Tribunal member quotes directly from paragraph 91 of the UNHCR Handbook: "In such situations, a person will not be excluded from refugee status merely because he could have sought refuge in another part of the same country, if under all the circumstances it would have been unreasonable to expect him to do so."

Outcome:

Substantive judicial review dismissed. Notwithstanding the Court’s criticism of the Tribunal’s treatment of internal relocation, given negative credibility findings, the Tribunal’s decision was upheld.

Observations/comments:

The observations by the High Court provide some detail as to the manner in which an assessment as to the possibility of internal relocation ought to be conducted.