The High Court has refused an infant’s application to quash a decision refusing her refugee status, finding that the Refugee Appeals Tribunal (RAT) was entitled to conclude she was not at risk of female genital mutilation (FGM) in Sierra Leone because her mother opposed the practice.
Mr Justice Barr delivered the judgment on 1 October 2014 in judicial review proceedings brought by A.M., an infant represented by her mother and next friend, T.M. The challenge concerned the RAT’s decision of 5 April 2013.
The child was born in Ireland in May 2012. Her mother, who is from Sierra Leone, applied for asylum on her behalf. She said the child could be subjected to FGM by relatives, particularly her maternal uncle, if returned. The mother also raised risks of forced underage marriage, domestic or sexual violence, and discrimination because the child’s parents were from different countries.
The applicant argued that the RAT had not assessed the child’s claim independently and had overlooked evidence about the pressure and risks faced by girls who refuse FGM. The respondents said the Tribunal had considered the country information and the mother’s evidence, and was entitled to assess the credibility and objective basis of the claimed risks.
Mr Justice Barr said the country information showed FGM was extremely prevalent in Sierra Leone, but the evidence before the RAT indicated that mothers generally sought the procedure for their daughters. Given the mother’s opposition, the Tribunal could find the child would be among the minority who did not undergo it. The judge also held that the RAT could take account of the fact that FGM had not been raised in the asylum application made for the child’s older sister in 2010.
The judge said the RAT was entitled to consider the mother’s stated fear of her uncle in light of evidence that he lived some distance from Freetown and, as far as was known, did not know the child existed. On underage marriage and domestic or sexual violence, the judge found there was no evidence before the RAT that these outcomes were likely for this child. He also found no evidence that she would face persecution because of her parents’ backgrounds.
The court’s decision was limited to whether the RAT’s decision could stand on the judicial review grounds advanced. Mr Justice Barr refused the application for an order of certiorari quashing the RAT’s 5 April 2013 decision.