According to the summary provided by the EUAA Courts and Tribunals Network:

The applicant was a Nigerian national who claimed that he was attacked in his country of origin on the basis that he was perceived as homosexual. The credibility of the claim was rejected by the Tribunal. In the High Court it was contended by the applicant’s legal representatives that the Tribunal erred by rejecting the account on the basis of peripheral travel issues.

Heslin J. reiterated the principle that the role of the Court in a judicial review is not to engage in a merits-based analysis of the claim. The Court rejected the claim that the Tribunal had failed to consider the applicant’s core narrative. The Court noted that the Tribunal had stated that the claim was broadly internally coherent, consistent with country-of-origin information and not implausible but was lacking in specificity and detail. The Tribunal found that looking at the case in the round, the applicant’s core claim was not established. Heslin J. stated:

“Insofar as it might be suggested that, where the Tribunal considers a claim to be “broadly coherent and consistent” and does not find “implausibility” such as would provide a basis for making adverse credibility findings, it is axiomatic that an applicant’s account satisfies the balance of probabilities test, I reject such a suggestion. It seems to me that such a proposition would rob the decision-maker of jurisdiction. It would be to suggest that, where a version of events is proffered under oath, the Tribunal is obliged to accept it without question as being sufficient to satisfy the balance of probabilities test, with no opportunity for the Tribunal to take anything else into account (be that the lack of specificity and lack of detail in the account proffered, and/or the demeanour of a witness and/or manner in which evidence was given, or any other issue). By contrast, the Tribunal in the present case did what it was entitled to do, namely, to look at the case “in the round” and come to its decision on the core claim.”

The Tribunal then proceeded to examine whether the benefit of the doubt could be extended to the applicant. The Tribunal stated that whilst travel was peripheral to the core of the applicant’s claim, it was relevant with respect to his general credibility. The Tribunal rejected the applicant’s claim of passing through airport security without having to show identity document as implausible, noting the applicant was vague and evasive when questioned. The Court found the Tribunal’s approach to examining whether the benefit of the doubt could apply was fair and legally correct. The Tribunal was entitled to make a negative finding concerning the applicant’s general credibility given the issues concerning his travel to the State. The Court stated:

“It is appropriate to note that the complete rejection by the Tribunal of the applicant’s account of his travel to Ireland was for the reasons which were detailed at para. [4.6]. As that section of the Tribunal’s judgment made clear, it was not merely because of the implausibility of the account provided by the applicant insofar as its content was concerned; nor was it exclusively because of the vagueness of the account given by the applicant. Furthermore, it was not exclusively because the applicant was unreasonably hesitant and evasive and lacking in specificity in answering basic questions. It is clear however, that all of the foregoing were factors which caused the Tribunal to completely reject the applicant’s account of his travel to Ireland and to make an adverse credibility finding.

Thus, all of the foregoing factors were material to the adverse credibility finding because all were specifically referred to by the Tribunal in its reasoned decision. Travel per se may well be a ‘peripheral’ matter but findings that the applicant was (i) vague; (ii) unreasonably hesitant; (iii) evasive; (iv) gave answers lacking in specificity, as regards answering basic questions; and (v) tendered an entirely implausible account, entitled the Tribunal to take the view that the applicant’s general credibility had not been established.”

Certiorari refused.