The High Court refused leave to apply for judicial review and dismissed an application for certiorari challenging a recommendation that a Nigerian woman and her minor daughter be refused refugee status. The court held that the applicants had not shown a clear and compelling injustice that could not be remedied through an appeal to the Refugee Appeals Tribunal.
The woman’s case was that she had been trafficked after leaving Nigeria in 2011. She said a man arranged her journey to the United Kingdom on the basis that she would repay him from work he promised to find. She travelled through Germany and London to Belfast, where she said two men tried to rape her. She escaped and later went to Cork, where a Nigerian woman accommodated her in exchange for childcare. The woman’s daughter was born in January 2012.
The Refugee Applications Commissioner rejected the asylum application, finding that the woman had not established a well-founded fear of persecution. The Commissioner’s report questioned her account, including her explanation for delaying her asylum application and how she escaped from the house in Belfast. It also concluded that she could relocate within Nigeria. The Commissioner recommended that any appeal be determined without an oral hearing under section 13(6)(a) of the Refugee Act 1996.
The applicants argued that the Commissioner should have investigated the trafficking allegations before deciding the asylum claim, and that the authorities had failed to protect the woman or provide safe accommodation and medical and psychological support. Their counsel also argued that the Commissioner should have used investigative powers under the Act.
The State filed affidavits during the proceedings describing attempts by a Garda human trafficking unit detective to contact the woman. The detective said she wanted to speak to her solicitor before speaking to Gardaí and that no trafficking complaint had been made at that stage. A later letter from her solicitor said she would make a statement.
Justice Eagar said the Commissioner’s role was to decide whether the applicants met the legal definition of refugees. Providing accommodation or medical care, investigating a trafficking complaint, and referring it to police were not functions of that office. The court considered that complaints about the Commissioner’s analysis could be dealt with by the Refugee Appeals Tribunal. It also noted that the applicants had lodged an appeal, albeit on a “strictly without prejudice basis”.
The judge said the section 13(6)(a) finding was neither relied on nor included in the grounds for relief. The court did not determine whether the trafficking allegations were true or decide the refugee claim on appeal. It refused leave for judicial review and dismissed the certiorari application.