The High Court has refused a mother and child’s application to quash a Refugee Appeals Tribunal decision rejecting the mother’s refugee claim, leaving that decision in place.
In a judgment delivered on 8 November 2013, Ms Justice M. H. Clark said the Tribunal’s decision could not be set aside on the grounds argued. The applicants had sought an order of certiorari and a fresh determination by a different Tribunal member. The court refused the application; it did not itself decide a new refugee claim.
The mother, a Nigerian national, arrived in Ireland in May 2007. Her daughter was born in Ireland in October 2008. The mother said she had fled threats connected to her role in election fraud and later feared trafficking. She also claimed her daughter could face female genital mutilation (FGM) or trafficking if returned to Nigeria. The Tribunal had rejected the claim after making several adverse credibility findings, including about her travel arrangements, and finding that state protection was available. The mother did not challenge the findings concerning the political aspect of her claim in this judicial review.
Her challenge focused on the Tribunal’s treatment of protection from trafficking and FGM, internal relocation within Nigeria, and country-of-origin information. She argued that assistance from the state and NGOs was ineffective in practice and that the Tribunal had not properly considered whether relocation would be reasonable for her and her child or identified a specific place to relocate. The respondents argued that the Tribunal had considered the available information and her circumstances, including her education and ability to seek help.
The judge said the legal requirement for detailed consideration of an internal relocation alternative applies where a well-founded fear of persecution for a Convention reason has been established. She found that the Tribunal had rejected the claim on broader grounds, including credibility and the availability of state protection, and had considered the mother’s personal circumstances when assessing relocation.
The court also rejected the claim that the Tribunal had unfairly selected country information. It held that a decision-maker must assess relevant material but need not accept every report submitted, and was entitled to prefer an Operational Guidance Note for the reasons given by the Tribunal.
The judgment said the evidence supported the Tribunal’s conclusion that protection was available in Nigeria against the asserted risks. The application was refused, so the Tribunal’s decision stood.