Refusal of refugee status to Nigerian national upheld despite irrationality of some credibility findings

Asylum - judicial review – telescoped hearing – Nigerian national challenging the decision of the Refugee Appeals Tribunal to refuse her refugee status – claims that she was raped, assaulted and threatened by her brother in law – that her husband was not supportive and was not willing to move – fled to Ireland, leaving her two children in Nigeria - never reported any events to the police in Nigeria – she argued that the tribunal’s adverse credibility findings were irrational – that the tribunal was selective with regard to the country of origin information and failed to give any reason for preferring one agency report over those she submitted – that the tribunal failed to properly consider her country of origin information and to apply the appropriate criteria in its internal relocation finding - where the country of origin information is conflicting, the decision maker must engage in a rational analysis of the conflict and justify preferring one view over the other on the basis of that analysis - in order to come to a valid decision on the availability of internal relocation, the decision maker has to identify the relevant location, notify it to the applicant, consider conditions there and come to a conclusion as to whether it was reasonable for the applicant to go there - presumption that a state protects its own citizens - tribunal argued that the country of origin information relied upon by the applicant was very much out of date – that there is no requirement that the decision maker refer to every document mentioned by the applicant - that the argument that the decision was tainted by mala fides was in reality a complaint of bias which had never been pleaded – tribunal argued that the finding on state protection was unrelated to credibility and was severable.