No evidence was provided to Refugee Appeals Tribunal that asylum applicant was persecuted in Nigeria

Judicial review – asylum and immigration – telescoped hearing - Nigerian woman challenging the decision of the Refugee Appeals Tribunal to refuse her refugee status – she claims to fear persecution from her husband’s family – after her husband died her brother in law sought to marry her pursuant to tribal custom - claim of domestic servitude, false imprisonment and forced labour in this state – despite looking after particular children for five years, she was unable to state their names - whether the tribunal’s assessment of internal relocation was contrary to the applicable legislation – argued that the tribunal failed to consider the personal circumstances - decision maker bears the burden of proof on internal relocation and it is up to the party asserting the availability of such relocation to establish the area concerned and to provide “evidence” that it is a reasonable alternative - UNHCR guidelines are not a legal instrument – argued that her need for treatment for her HIV should have been dealt with in the context of internal relocation - unsustainable proposition - whether there is a contradiction between a finding of no well-founded fear and a consideration of internal relocation - a decision-maker has an option, having found against an applicant on one decisive ground, to either say nothing further, or alternatively to move on to consider one or more alternative decisive ground - if there is a flaw in the reasoning in relation to any one or more of the alternative decisive grounds the overall decision will be allowed stand if it is supported by at least one valid ground capable of independently justifying the outcome - whether the finding of an absence of objective well-founded fear incoherent and unreasonable - whether the tribunal acted unlawfully in failing to apply the rider to reg. 5(2) of the 2006 regulations in relation to serious harm – statutory interpretation - the whether the “serious harm” element of the rider to reg. 5(2) applies only in the subsidiary protection context - to require an asylum decision maker to consider serious harm would do away with the need for subsidiary protection altogether - references to “persecution or serious harm” should be read as references to whichever of those concepts is applicable to the particular type of decision at hand - tribunal cannot be questioned on the ground that it failed to “address the question of quite serious harm” - if serious harm had to be considered there is no infirmity arising in relation to a failure to consider serious harm, because there is no evidence of serious harm within the meaning – whether the rider should be considered in every case or merely where persecution has been found - the application of the rider is predicated on an original finding of persecution or serious harm – whether there was past persecution such as to require narrative consideration of the rider to reg. 5(2) – definition of persecution – matter of alleged servitude in Ireland did not form part of any finding that this amounted to persecution and, therefore, was not part of the core decision of the tribunal.