In the High Court (Administrative Division)

On appeal from the Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber)

G (Nigeria)
v
Secretary of State for the Home Department
G was born in Abuja, Nigeria on 4 September 1996. In April 2014, G
and her cousin, M, applied for secretarial positions in the Abuja offices
of the Royal Dutch Shell Company (RDS). After separate interviews, M
was not offered a post, whereas G secured a secretarial position with
the Chief Operations Executive of RDS.
On 4 May 2014, M asked to visit G at the RDS offices. G agreed, and
welcomed M, who was accompanied by a friend (F), into her office. M
introduced F as a reporter writing for the Daily Times, Nigeria. F asked
G if she had access to the reserve oil tanks in Port Harcourt. RDS had
opened thirty-two reserve oil tanks of 300,000 litres each, in Port
Harcourt, but the tanks were only accessible to inspectors and
company executives. G responded that she did, mumbling that they
were the same codes for all RDS reserve tanks. F asked for the code to
the south-side tank in Port Harcourt. G, feeling pressured by her cousin,
gave F the five-digit code.
Three weeks later, on 25 May 2014, an RDS reserve tank in Aba
exploded, killing fourteen employees. An anti-corporation militia known
as the Nigerian Peoples Resources (NPR) claimed responsibility for the
explosion. Further, NPR threatened that other key Nigerian cities would
be targeted if the government accepted RDSs bid for a large oil field
over the bid of the Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation. The NPR
was known to tamper with petrol lines, to tap into fuel reserves, and
voice criticism of foreign corporation presence in Nigeria.
G did not think anything of the terrorist attack, but suspected that F did
not work for the Daily when F once again asked for the access code
(which had been changed after the Aba explosion). G supplied the
code, and F left. Three days later, on 28 May 2014, four RDS reserve
tanks exploded in Port Harcourt, causing significant damage to
infrastructure and killing twenty-six employees. G was appalled that
her suspicions that F was affiliated with NPR were confirmed.
On 1 June 2014, F followed G home after work and once again asked
for the access codes. This time, G refused. She insulted F, telling him

that he had abused Ms trust to obtain the codes. F threatened G: if she

didnt text the access codes to him by 10pm, F would beat her and her
family and tell the RDS Operations Manager that G was responsible for
leaking the codes that allowed NPR to plan the explosions. Later that
night, G sent a wrong code to F. Meanwhile, RDS issued a statement
threatening criminal prosecution of any individual who had leaked
information to NPR.
On 10 June 2014, an infuriated F and five NPR militants attacked G and
M while they were walking through town. They threatened to kill Gs
family if the next code did not work. F also asked for company
documents, including tax forms and employee information. Terrified, G
supplied F with what he had requested.
Throughout June and July 2014, NPR carried out more acts of terror
against RDS. On separate occasions, three employees were killed.
Many RDS employees reported being followed home, harassed, or
threatened by NPR militants. New security measures were put in place,
but the militants always seemed to thwart these provisions. On 4
August 2014, G once again refused to supply F confidential company
invoices. Impatient, F ordered NPR to shoot and kill M on 5 August
2014.
After hearing of her cousins murder, G rushed to the airport and
boarded a flight to the UK that arrived in Luton on 6 August 2014. She
claimed asylum on the same day on the ground of her membership in a
particular social groupa pro-corporation employee of Royal Dutch
Shellpersecuted by environmental terrorist NPR militants.
The UK Border Agency denied her refugee status, claiming that Gs
claim of persecution and fear of serious personal violence was not
credible; G appealed to the Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum
Chamber).
Despite finding G credible, the judge upheld the UK Border Agencys
decision to deny G refugee status by applying article 1(F) of the 1951
Refugee Convention together with s54 of the Immigration and Asylum
Act 2006. The judge found that:
1) G was not a member of a persecuted social group because RDS
enjoys significant political backing in Nigeria.
2) G had significantly contributed to terrorist attacks at RDS
facilities, amounting to committing a serious non-political crime.
G appeals on the following grounds:-

1) The court erred in finding that article 1(F)(b) of the Refugee

Convention was engaged in Gs case, excluding her from refugee
status, on the basis that the appellants supply of access codes
constituted a significant contribution to the purposes NPR.
2) The court erred in rejecting that the appellant is a member of a
particular social group pursuant to s12 (2) of the Immigration and
Asylum Act 2006 because the group to which she is claiming
membership (a pro-corporation employee of Royal Dutch Shell)
enjoys the political support of the Peoples Democratic Party
(PDP), which holds a significant political minority (nearly 45%
popular support in the 2015 presidential election) in Nigeria.