MH (Nigeria) v Minister for Justice & Law Reform & ors

Factual and Procedural Background

This case involves an application for leave to seek judicial review of a decision by the Refugee Appeals Tribunal (RAT) dated 4th November 2010, which affirmed a negative recommendation by the Office of the Refugee Applications Commissioner (ORAC) that the Applicant not be declared a refugee.

The Applicant is a national of Nigeria, born in 1973, a Christian of the Hausa ethnic group, who alleges persecution by a Muslim extremist group known as the hisbah militants in northern Nigeria. The Applicant claims his family was persecuted for their religion, including the killing of his mother in 1998 and his own arrests and beatings in 2001. He states that in 2007 his Christian group was attacked, his home burnt down, and he was advised by police to leave the area. He subsequently traveled to Lagos and then to Ireland, where his partner and Irish citizen son reside.

The Applicant applied for refugee status in Ireland in June 2007. ORAC recommended refusal, and the RAT affirmed this decision in November 2010, finding that internal relocation to Lagos was a viable option. The Applicant challenges the RAT decision on grounds including the tribunal's approach to internal relocation, medical evidence, and country of origin information.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the Refugee Appeals Tribunal erred in its assessment of the feasibility and reasonableness of internal relocation within Nigeria, particularly to Lagos.
2. Whether the tribunal properly considered the medical evidence regarding the Applicant’s colorectal cancer and its implications for the reasonableness of internal relocation.
3. Whether the tribunal adequately considered country of origin information relating to sectarian violence and access to healthcare in Nigeria.

Arguments of the Parties

Applicant's Arguments

• The Applicant argued that internal relocation to Lagos would be unduly harsh due to inadequate medical treatment for his colorectal cancer in Nigeria, supported by country of origin information indicating substandard healthcare.
• The Applicant relied on precedent establishing that internal relocation assessments must consider substantive factors such as medical treatment availability, citing K.D. (Nigeria) v. Refugee Appeals Tribunal & anor [2013] IEHC 481.
• The Applicant emphasized that his persecution claim is based on religious grounds, not his medical condition, and contended that the tribunal failed to properly assess the reasonableness of relocation in light of his personal circumstances.
• The Applicant submitted that the tribunal’s finding that he failed to explain why he could not relocate was erroneous and that the tribunal applied an incorrect test regarding internal relocation.
• Additional precedents cited by the Applicant included W.M.M. v. Refugee Appeals Tribunal & anor [2009] IEHC 492, A.S.O. v. Refugee Appeals Tribunal & anor [2009] IEHC 607, and E.I. & A.I. v. Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform & anor [2014] IEHC 27.

Respondents' Arguments

• The Respondents challenged the Applicant’s credibility, noting the tribunal’s use of qualified language such as “alleged persecution.”
• The Respondents submitted that the tribunal properly considered the Applicant’s personal circumstances, including his age, education, and experience.
• They argued the Applicant failed to provide a reasonable explanation for not relocating to Lagos when questioned by the tribunal.
• The Respondents highlighted that the Applicant had previously received cancer treatment in Nigeria and that medical facilities are available in Lagos, albeit not to Irish standards.
• They relied on the principle from Agbonlahor & ors. v. Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform & anor [2007] IEHC 166, which holds that a lower standard of medical treatment in a home country does not confer a right to remain in the host state.
• The Respondents submitted that the tribunal’s internal relocation finding complied with legal requirements, including Regulation 7 of the European Communities (Eligibility for Protection) Regulations 2006 (S.I. 518 of 2006), and was an “even if” finding.
• They contended the Applicant did not meet the “exceptional circumstances” threshold to avoid relocation despite his medical condition.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
K.D. (Nigeria) v. Refugee Appeals Tribunal & anor [2013] IEHC 481	Internal relocation assessments must consider substantive factors, including the adequacy of medical treatment and the reasonableness of relocation given personal circumstances.	The court found the tribunal applied the correct test as per this precedent, considering whether relocation to Lagos would be unduly harsh.
W.M.M. v. Refugee Appeals Tribunal & anor [2009] IEHC 492	Consideration of internal relocation and personal circumstances in refugee claims.	Referenced by the Applicant to support the argument that the tribunal failed to properly assess internal relocation.
A.S.O. v. Refugee Appeals Tribunal & anor [2009] IEHC 607	Assessment of internal relocation feasibility.	Referenced by the Applicant in support of his submissions on internal relocation.
E.I. & A.I. v. Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform & anor [2014] IEHC 27	Standards for evaluating internal relocation claims.	Referenced by the Applicant in submissions concerning the tribunal’s approach.
Agbonlahor & ors. v. Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform & anor [2007] IEHC 166	An applicant cannot claim a right to remain in the host state due to inferior medical treatment in the home country.	The Respondents relied on this precedent to argue that medical treatment availability in Nigeria, even if substandard, does not preclude internal relocation.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court carefully examined the tribunal member’s decision and found that the tribunal had properly considered the issue of internal relocation. The tribunal engaged the Applicant on the feasibility of relocating to Lagos, taking into account his personal circumstances and the conditions on the ground. The tribunal found the Applicant failed to provide a reasonable explanation for not relocating.

The court rejected the Applicant’s argument that the tribunal applied the wrong test regarding internal relocation, concluding that the tribunal correctly applied the test established in K.D. (Nigeria), focusing on whether relocation would be unduly harsh rather than requiring the absence of persecution in the relocation area.

Regarding the medical evidence, the court found the tribunal was fully aware of the Applicant’s medical history, including his colorectal cancer and treatment, and showed sympathy for his condition. The tribunal correctly determined that ongoing medical issues did not bring the Applicant within the refugee definition, and the court found no error in this approach.

The court also found no merit in the claim that the tribunal failed to properly consider country of origin information. The tribunal gave extensive consideration to the Applicant’s testimony, medical reports, country of origin reports, and written submissions. It concluded that although the Applicant had subjective fears, he did not objectively demonstrate a fear of persecution for a Convention reason.

Overall, the court found the tribunal’s decision to be reasoned and rational, grounded in a thorough evaluation of evidence and legal principles.

Holding and Implications

The court REFUSED LEAVE to the Applicant to apply for judicial review of the Refugee Appeals Tribunal’s decision.

This ruling upholds the tribunal’s decision that the Applicant is not entitled to refugee status, primarily because internal relocation to Lagos was found to be reasonable and not unduly harsh despite the Applicant’s medical condition. The decision does not establish new precedent but reinforces existing principles on internal relocation and the treatment of medical evidence in refugee claims.