The High Court has quashed a Refugee Appeals Tribunal decision rejecting a four-year-old boy’s application for refugee status, finding that the Tribunal wrongly treated his mother’s failed asylum claim as relevant to his case.
Mr Justice Colm Mac Eochaidh said the child’s claim was based on his mother’s fear that he would be kidnapped if returned to Nigeria. Her earlier claim concerned fears of forced scarification and female genital mutilation. The judge said the claims were unrelated, despite the mother answering “Yes” when asked at interview whether her son’s claim was based on her own.
The child, who was born in Ireland, applied for refugee status through his mother in February 2011. The Refugee Applications Commissioner rejected the application, finding the mother’s fear of kidnapping improbable and that the child could obtain state protection in Nigeria. The Commissioner also criticised the delay before the application was made.
The Tribunal dismissed the child’s appeal in October 2011. Its decision referred to the mother’s rejected claim and said the findings in that case were relevant to the child’s claim. The High Court noted that the Tribunal had found the child’s fear of being specifically targeted for kidnapping was not sufficiently connected to a real possibility that it would happen. The judge said that conclusion was supported by the material before the Tribunal and disclosed no error of law or fact.
However, the judge found a serious error in the Tribunal’s reliance on the mother’s case. The mother’s answer at interview may have resulted from misunderstanding: English was not her first language, and she was being interviewed about the application she was making on her son’s behalf. The judge said the child could not be held responsible for her answer and that the mother’s failed claim could not properly be treated as relevant to his distinct claim.
The court concluded that the Tribunal had taken account of irrelevant material and that this may have influenced its decision. It therefore ordered that the Tribunal decision be quashed.
The judgment did not finally determine the child’s refugee application or direct a specific outcome on reconsideration. Justice Mac Eochaidh said he had concerns about simply sending the matter back, as the same error might recur. He indicated that the child’s solicitor might need to revise the notice of appeal to address the mother’s interview answer. The judge said he would hear the parties on the appropriate form of order.