The High Court refused an infant’s application for leave to seek judicial review of the Refugee Applications Commissioner’s recommendation that she had not established a well-founded fear of persecution. Mr Justice Edwards said an appeal to the Refugee Appeals Tribunal offered the appropriate route for addressing concerns about the assessment. He made no order as to costs.
The child, born in Ireland to a Nigerian father and Ugandan mother, claimed a risk of persecution in Uganda because her mother’s family opposed her marriage to a Christian, and a risk of female genital mutilation in Nigeria from her father’s family. The claims were made on her behalf by her mother.
The Commissioner’s July 2006 report had concluded that the child did not meet the refugee definition. It referred to the mother’s lack of knowledge of Nigerian organisations assisting women who opposed FGM and legislation outlawing the practice. It also relied on the family’s previous time in Nigeria without the mother being subjected to FGM, the father’s opposition to the practice, and the possibility of returning to Uganda.
The child argued that the Commissioner had failed to provide fair procedures, properly analyse the evidence and have regard to the UNHCR Handbook. The respondents said the statutory appeal was the appropriate remedy and that the child’s claim had received separate consideration.
Justice Edwards described the case as borderline. He said he would have been disposed to grant leave if substantial grounds had been established for quashing the report, but exercised his discretion against leave because an appeal was available and would involve a complete rehearing and reassessment of the evidence.
The judge was not persuaded by the fair-procedures complaint. He was, however, concerned about the Commissioner’s analysis and the limited country information disclosed in the report. The Nigerian material did not establish whether the state where the family had lived had an FGM law, and the report did not address whether an infant faced a greater risk than an adult. The Ugandan constitutional extract was presented without context, and the judge said it could not support the broad conclusions drawn about state protection and relocation.
The court’s criticisms were not a finding that the child qualified for refugee status. Justice Edwards said the appeal could allow the evidence to be reassessed and further material to be considered. He dismissed the application for leave to apply for judicial review and made no order as to costs.