Adverse credibility findings were rational and within the jurisdiction of Refugee Appeals Tribunal

Judicial review – asylum and immigration – substantive hearing – Nigerian national challenging the decision of the Refugee Appeals Tribunal refusing her refugee status – she argued that the credibility findings were based on matters peripheral to the core claim and are based on conjecture – argued that the Tribunal failed to make any clear and unambiguous finding in respect of her core claim - lack of clarity – decision was impugned on the basis of an asserted finding in relation to her demeanour and perceived vagueness -claims that her brother was murdered by Boko Haram - feared that she would be murdered by Boko Haram - adverse credibility findings - account is not supported by any specific country of origin information but is supported by country of origin information in a general sense - account was not consistent throughout the asylum process - vague and evasive responses - Tribunal stated that her hesitancy in giving evidence was indicative of a potential lack of credibility – argued that demeanour is not a reliable indicator of credibility – principles for the assessment of credibility – credibility and peripheral matters - need for clearly expressed decisions relative to the core claim and the extent to which elements of a claim are required to be formally decided upon depends upon the circumstances of each case - the assessment of demeanour in itself can rarely be a sure ground for dismissing the cogency of a witness’s evidence - tribunal does have jurisdiction to make an entirely new finding – Court satisfied that the tribunal considered the matter in detail and identified a significant number of credibility issues – Court not inclined to the view that all issues on credibility were peripheral issues - rational and reasonable and within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to find her general credibility as lacking - Tribunal was weary of placing an overemphasis on credibility relative to demeanour - minor weight seems to have been afforded both for and against her based upon her demeanour – approach to demeanour evidence found to be legally sustainable – judicial review refused.