The High Court refused leave to challenge a 2011 Refugee Appeals Tribunal decision rejecting a Bolivian mother’s asylum claim and those of her two children. Ms Justice Stewart held that the tribunal had assessed whether the mother could obtain state protection in Bolivia, taking account of her circumstances and her husband’s alleged connections.
The judicial review sought to quash the tribunal’s decision of 4 October 2011 and have the appeal reconsidered by a different tribunal member. At the hearing, the court granted an unopposed two-day extension of time to bring the proceedings.
The mother said her husband had abused her and that his connections in government and the police meant she could not secure protection. The tribunal had accepted that she suffered domestic violence, referring to a medical certificate recording bruising, and considered country information describing violence against women in Bolivia as widespread and under-reported. It also noted that a police unit handled such cases, despite limited resources.
The applicants argued that the tribunal had wrongly failed to recognise them as a particular social group, preferred some country information without adequate explanation, and did not properly assess whether protection would be practically available in their circumstances. They also argued that the decision did not address the youngest child’s situation.
The respondents said the children’s claims were advanced through their mother and no separate fear of persecution had been identified for the youngest child. They argued that the tribunal considered the claim as a whole, including the husband’s alleged connections, the country information, and medical evidence concerning the older child.
The judge concluded that the tribunal had rejected the claim on the basis that state protection would be available if sought. It had considered whether the husband’s connections could prevent the mother from obtaining that protection. The court found this was an assessment of protection in the family’s particular circumstances and said it could not substitute its own assessment for the tribunal’s on judicial review.
The judge also noted that where children’s fears are not separately identified, their case may be considered as dependent on the parent’s claim. The court refused leave to proceed with the judicial review. It did not quash the tribunal decision or order a fresh appeal hearing.