Facts: The applicants were Nigerian nationals, husband and wife, who applied separately for asylum in Ireland. Their claims were based on fear of “ju-ju / black magic” arising out of a ritual in which they had allegedly participated, during which they learnt that a sacrifice was to occur, prompting them to flee. They challenged the first instance decision of the … Read More
JO and Another v Refugee Applications Commissioner and Others
| Respondent/Defendant: | Refugee Applications Commissioner, Minister for Justice and Equality, Ireland and the Attorney General |
| Court/s: | High Court |
| Citation/s: | [2015] IEHC 451 |
| Nature of Proceedings: | Judicial Review |
| Judgment Date/s: | 13 Jul 2015 |
| Judge: | MacEochaidh J. |
| Category: | Refugee Law |
| Keywords: | Refugee |
| Country of Origin: | Nigeria |
| URL: | https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/75b932f9-8994-4c2f-85d9-91a922c331a0/2015_IEHC_451_1.pdf/pdf#view=fitH |
| Geographic Focus: | Ireland |
| Principles: | An asylum applicant challenging a decision of the Refugee Applications Commissioner will not be able to set aside a finding made under s. 13(6) of the Refugee Act 1996 unless he or she can demonstrate that such a finding would not have been open to the Commissioner in the exercise of his discretion. A finding on internal relocation will not necessarily be defective for failing to identify a place of relocation in Nigeria, bearing in mind its size, in terms of area and population, and where the fear is localised. Whilst best practice might be to identify a place of relocation, failure to adhere to it will not necessarily warrant quashing the impugned decisions. |