O.S.O v International Protection Appeals Tribunal & Anor (Approved)

Factual and Procedural Background

The Applicant, a citizen of Nigeria born in 1970 and a Christian pastor, applied for international protection in the State on 16 April 2021. The Applicant claimed a fear of persecution linked to a hereditary chieftaincy title and membership in the Ogboni cult, which he refused on religious grounds. His father was allegedly killed for refusing to join this cult, a fate the Applicant feared for himself. The Applicant received letters from the local Chief and Palace in Nigeria nominating him to a cabinet position within the chieftaincy structure, which he feared due to his Christian faith. The Applicant left Nigeria in December 2020 and sought protection citing religious persecution.

The International Protection Officer (IPO) refused the Applicant refugee status and subsidiary protection by letter dated 31 August 2022. The Applicant appealed to the International Protection Appeals Tribunal (the Tribunal), which held an oral hearing on 18 November 2022 and ultimately affirmed the IPO’s decision on 18 January 2023. The Applicant sought judicial review of the Tribunal’s decision, alleging it was unreasonable and irrational, and contained errors of fact and law. Leave was granted to challenge the decision on 24 April 2023, with the Applicant also requesting an extension of time for bringing the application.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the Tribunal’s decision affirming the refusal of refugee and subsidiary protection status was unreasonable or irrational in law.
2. Whether the Tribunal erred in its use and interpretation of country of origin information.
3. Whether the Tribunal properly assessed the Applicant’s credibility and the well-foundedness of the fear of persecution.
4. Whether an extension of time should be granted to allow the judicial review application.

Arguments of the Parties

Applicant's Arguments

• The Tribunal misapplied country of origin information by treating it as contradictory and of little assistance, despite both parties relying on largely the same sources.
• The Tribunal incorrectly found that the Applicant’s psychological fear only crystallised in 2019, which was irrational given the plausibility of the Applicant’s narrative.
• The Tribunal misinterpreted country of origin reports, particularly failing to consider evidence that refusal of a chieftaincy title may lead to serious consequences, including persecution.
• The Tribunal failed to rationally resolve conflicts in the country of origin information, contrary to established case law.
• The Tribunal’s findings were irrational and unreasonable and should be set aside and remitted for rehearing.

Respondents' Arguments

• The Applicant unfairly dissected the Tribunal decision; when viewed as a whole, the decision was lawful and reasonable.
• The country of origin information did not clearly equate refusal of a chieftaincy title with refusal to join the Ogboni cult; the Applicant never explicitly refused or responded to the nomination letters.
• The Tribunal properly considered all relevant information and was entitled to prefer the EASO report over others for its clarity and source.
• The Tribunal conducted separate lawful analyses: one assessing facts and circumstances and credibility, and another assessing whether the fear of persecution was well-founded.
• The Tribunal’s acceptance of the Applicant’s credibility did not require granting refugee status if the fear was objectively unfounded.
• The Tribunal’s decision was consistent with established legal principles, including those requiring judicial review to assess the decision as a whole rather than isolated parts.
• The Tribunal’s approach was distinguishable from precedent cases where extensive country of origin information demonstrated significant risk of torture.
• The Tribunal lawfully exercised discretion in assessing credibility and well-founded fear, and the decision should stand.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court analysed the Tribunal’s decision in light of the extensive evidence and submissions. It noted that the Tribunal found the country of origin information contradictory and of limited assistance but nonetheless accepted the Applicant’s narrative as credible and plausible. The court found this approach lawful and consistent with the principle that credibility assessment involves both subjective and objective elements.

The Tribunal conducted a two-stage analysis: first assessing the Applicant’s credibility and then considering whether the fear of persecution was objectively well-founded in light of the country of origin information. The court held that the Tribunal was entitled to prefer certain country of origin reports over others, provided reasons were given, which was done here by preferring the EASO report for its clarity and source.

The court distinguished the present case from precedent where conflicting information was not rationally analysed, finding that the Tribunal here had engaged in a balanced and reasoned evaluation. The Tribunal’s rejection of the Applicant’s fear as objectively unfounded was supported by evidence that the Applicant had spent prolonged periods in Nigeria without harm and had opportunities to seek protection in other countries through which he traveled.

The court emphasised that judicial review requires consideration of the decision as a whole rather than isolated parts and found no basis to interfere with the Tribunal’s lawful exercise of discretion. The court also found sufficient grounds to grant the Applicant an extension of time to bring the application.

Holding and Implications

The court granted an extension of time to the Applicant for bringing the judicial review application but refused the substantive relief sought, thereby upholding the Tribunal’s decision refusing refugee status and subsidiary protection.

The direct effect is that the Applicant’s challenge to the Tribunal’s decision fails and the Tribunal’s decision stands. No broader precedent was established, as the court applied well-established principles regarding credibility assessment, use of country of origin information, and judicial review standards.