Member Login

Open to IPAT to find that Nigerian national’s medical report was outweighed by other factors

By: James Cross BL

or click here to request site subscription to search and view all judgments

High Court refuses judicial review of the decision refusing a Nigerian national international protection on the grounds that it was open to the International Protection Appeals Tribunal to hold that the supportive medical report submitted was outweighed by other factors.

Asylum and immigration – judicial review – Nigerian national challenging decision refusing him international protection – applied for asylum in Italy – came to this State – application for residence based on marriage to an Irish citizen refused – separated – decision to transfer his application to another EU member state under the Dublin III Regulation – appeal dismissed – brought judicial review – judicial review compromised – admitted into the asylum process – protection application refused - alleged failure to uphold the claim under art. 15(c) of the Qualification Directive – failed to give proper regard to the real risk of serious harm due to the internal armed conflict in Borno State - ground as pleaded misunderstands the process of judicial review – no basis for the claim - has not established that the medical information put forward on his behalf was not considered – conclusion that the level of violence was not so extreme as to engage art. 15(c) merely by the his presence was lawful - alleged failure to give proper probative weight to medico-legal documentation - attempt to invite the court to disagree with the factual findings of the tribunal member – contradictions in his account - open to a decision-maker to hold that such support, if any, as is given to the applicant’s account by a medical report is outweighed by other factors - not for the court to second-
guess the analysis and weighing of all of the evidence of the member of the tribunal – decision of the Tribunal was not unreasonable – judicial review refused –

Note: This is intended to be a fair and accurate report of a decision made public by a court of law. Any errors should be notified to the editor and will be dealt with accordingly.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *