The High Court refused two infant twins leave to seek judicial review of negative refugee-status recommendations made by the Refugee Applications Commissioner. The court said they had not shown substantial grounds to quash the decisions or established that an appeal on the papers would be an inadequate remedy.
The twins, described in the judgment as fraternal, were born in Ireland in 2008 to Nigerian parents. Their mother applied for asylum on their behalf in February 2009, citing fears that the father’s family would subject them to spiritual rituals associated with twins, and that relatives in her home area would subject the children to circumcision or female genital mutilation. Those were claims advanced in the applications, not findings by the court. No country-of-origin information or other documentary evidence was submitted with them.
The Commissioner recommended against refugee declarations on 30 March 2009. The reports found the mother’s explanation for why the family could not relocate within Nigeria not credible. They also concluded that she had not established a reasonable likelihood that the twins would face persecution because of membership of a particular social group. A finding under section 13(6)(a) of the Refugee Act meant the twins would not receive an oral hearing on appeal to the Refugee Appeals Tribunal.
The applicants argued that assessing the reasonableness of internal relocation required a complex examination of their personal circumstances and that a paper appeal could not properly address it. The respondents said the Commissioner’s credibility assessment was based on the substance of the mother’s answers, rather than her demeanour, and that the specialist tribunal could consider the matter without an oral hearing.
Justice M. Clark held that the applicants had not shown a comparable fairness problem to earlier cases they cited. The Commissioner’s recommendations rested primarily on the finding that the claimed risk of persecution had not been established, rather than on a conclusion that the twins could safely relocate. In those circumstances, the court said, an in-depth assessment of a proposed relocation area was not required at that stage.
The court said the applicants could make written submissions and support any claim of hardship or inability to live elsewhere in Nigeria with affidavits and documentary evidence on appeal. It found no demonstrated prejudice from the lack of an oral hearing and no identified legal, factual or procedural error warranting leave. The decision concerned permission to bring judicial review proceedings; it did not decide the twins’ refugee claims. Leave was refused.