No fault could be found in adverse credibility findings in decision to refuse Nigerian national asylum

Judicial review – telescoped hearing – Nigerian national challenging the decision of the Refugee Appeals Tribunal to refuse him refugee status - claim is based on a stated fear of persecution due to membership of a particular social group, that of a practising gay man, and a stated fear of persecution due to membership of this particular social group - first left Nigeria in 1995 - claimed asylum in the United Kingdom on political grounds which were subsequently refused - he left the UK in late 1999 or early 2000 - went to the USA - overstayed his visa - returned to Nigeria - left Nigeria in early 2005 and came to Ireland - used a British passport in the name of JT to enter the state - arrested as a result of an argument he had with a shop keeper - produced the passport to the Gardai when they were called and he was arrested and charged with possession of false documents - when he was in Cloverhill Prison, he claimed that he applied for asylum - said he met his wife in 2000 when he went to America - had a child in 2002 and twins in 2010 after she had visited him - they were married on the 15th July 2008 in Ireland - claim is that he was bisexual and that he realised he was attracted to men at the age of 30 - he was never beaten or attacked because of his sexuality - Commissioner appeared to have made an unwarranted assumption that a gay man should be in a position to identify his sexuality before the age of 30 - claimed that his own family became aware of this relationship with the other man and confronted him about it - claims his family were not happy with this relationship and his brother threatened to call the police - claims he was forced to leave Nigeria - did not submit any evidence to show that he returned to Nigeria between 2002 and 2003 and stayed there until 2005 - in the course of his interview, he said that he went to the United Kingdom on holidays – tribunal found that it was not credible that he would be able to pass through at least four international airports with someone else’s British passport and a British passport in the name of JT which he bought on the black market – tribunal found that his account of passing through immigration checks using a passport that did not belong to him bearing in mind the heightened security at various international airports was implausible - considered that he had not provided a reasonable explanation for his failure to apply for asylum as soon as reasonably practicable – tribunal found that he had presented a case that was based solely on his unsupported personal claim which could not be verified - burden of proof lies with the person who submits a claim for asylum - procedures and criteria for determining refugee status - benefit of the doubt – tribunal determined that if he had a genuine fear of persecution in Nigeria he would have claimed asylum when he had the opportunity to do so – argued that the credibility findings were based upon gut feeling and conjecture, are unsupported by reasons of without proper consideration of the “evidence” - argued that the claim was not assessed objectively - argued there was no objective assessment of whether the Afghani national’s story in whole or in part could have happened – argued that the submissions which were delivered on the notice of appeal were ignored – argued that there was an obligation on the tribunal to make necessary inquiries with Cloverhill Prison with regard to the confiscated false passport – tribunal argued that he presented no documentation at all in relation to the account of his claim - prior application for asylum – criteria the Commissioner or the tribunal must have regard to in assessing credibility - no evidence to suggest that he had written to the Governor of Cloverhill Prison or the relevant Garda station to seek a copy of the document - regulations for the assessment of facts and circumstances - the relevant issues in the notice of appeal while not directly referred to appear to have been dealt with appropriately by the tribunal.