Obasi, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department

A claim may be certified as clearly unfounded where, accepting the claimant’s account, it would be bound to fail before an immigration judge. In assessing sufficiency of protection, the question is whether the authorities are willing and able to provide protection against the particular threat, rather than whether the police are generally free from corruption or inefficiency. Internal relocation may provide a complete answer where the claimant can realistically live independently elsewhere in the country and there is no evidence that the persecutors can or will pursue him there. A claimant need not rely on relatives or community networks if his personal circumstances enable independent relocation. A pending civil claim does not generally prevent removal where it can be initiated and prepared abroad, with re-entry sought for any hearing.

The claimant, a Nigerian national, sought asylum and human rights protection after refusing to become village king because the role involved rituals and sacrifices contrary to his Christian faith. His claims were certified as clearly unfounded. Removal attempts failed, and he additionally argued that removal would breach Article 6 because he intended to bring a civil assault claim against his escorts.

The judicial review challenged both the Article 6 decision and the asylum certification. The central issues were whether the claimant would receive a sufficiency of protection in Nigeria, whether internal relocation was reasonably available, and whether the asylum claim was bound to fail.

1. Article 6. The Article 6 claim was hopeless. The claimant could initiate proceedings and carry out preparatory steps from Nigeria. If attendance at the hearing became necessary, he could seek permission to re-enter the United Kingdom. Whether refusal of such permission would breach Article 6 could be considered if an application were later made and refused.
2. Sufficiency of protection. The relevant question was not whether Nigerian police were generally corrupt or inefficient, but whether they were willing and able to pursue the particular offences and provide a sufficient degree of protection. The country guidance decision BL (Ogboni cult - Protection - Relocation) Nigeria CG [2002] UKIAT 01708 recorded that the background information did not show that the Nigerian government was unwilling or unable to provide protection. The evidence concerning police action against cult crimes in Anambra supported the same conclusion.
3. Internal relocation. Internal relocation was a complete answer to the asylum claim. The claimant was a fit, young, single and well-educated man with financial support from his family. He had already travelled to Lagos and stayed there without being found. The evidence did not establish that his kinsmen had attempted to trace him there or had the ability to pursue him throughout Nigeria. Evidence that vulnerable people may depend on relatives or community networks did not apply to a person capable of living independently.
4. The Secretary of State was entitled to conclude that the claim was bound to fail, and the certification was lawful. The claim was dismissed. The claimant was ordered to pay the defendant’s costs, not to be enforced without leave of the court, with detailed assessment for Community Legal Funding purposes. Permission to appeal was refused.