The High Court has dismissed a Nigerian child’s application for judicial review of a Refugee Appeals Tribunal decision refusing to recommend refugee status.
In a judgment delivered on 30 January 2014, Mr Justice Colm Mac Eochaidh rejected arguments that the Tribunal had failed to consider the child’s personal circumstances when finding that she and her mother could relocate within Nigeria. He also rejected a challenge based on the Tribunal not knowing where the mother had lived before leaving the country.
The applicant, identified in the judgment as M. A., was born in Ireland in 2006. Her asylum claim was based on her mother’s account that she had been conceived through rape by the mother’s father, and on concerns about the child’s Kawasaki disease and access to treatment in Nigeria. The mother’s own refugee claim had been refused on credibility grounds.
The Tribunal had found that the child would not be denied medical follow-up because her mother could not afford it. It also concluded that the mother and child could move to Lagos or Abuja to avoid the alleged sources of harm. The High Court said the Tribunal’s decision showed that it had considered the child’s circumstances, particularly her healthcare needs.
On relocation, the judge said the absence of evidence about the mother’s previous place of residence did not invalidate the decision in this case. The alleged threat was from the mother’s father and people associated with a shrine, while Nigeria had a population of almost 170 million. The Tribunal’s finding was that the mother and child could move to a large city and remove themselves from the alleged source of harm. The court rejected that ground of challenge.
The applicant also argued that country information describing problems with Nigeria’s public healthcare supported a finding that the child would not receive needed treatment. The judge found adequate material to support the Tribunal’s conclusion and said no argument had shown it to be irrational.
The court added that lack of medical care, by itself, could not support an asylum claim unless it was linked to discriminatory treatment directed at a social group. No such case had been advanced before the Tribunal or at the hearing. The judge also declined to prevent later decision-makers from considering the Tribunal’s medical-care findings, having found no fault in its approach.
The High Court dismissed the application. It did not quash the Tribunal decision or grant the requested remedy.