The High Court refused leave in a judicial review challenge to a Refugee Appeals Tribunal decision rejecting a Nigerian child’s appeal against the refusal of refugee status. The court held that the tribunal could reject the child’s claimed risk of female genital mutilation (FGM) and was not obliged to assess general country-of-origin information after rejecting the specific risk advanced on her behalf.
The applicant, identified in the judgment as F.U., was a Nigerian national born in 2006. She arrived in Ireland with her mother in April 2007. Her mother and two brothers had also applied for asylum. The applicant and her mother had been granted permission to remain in Ireland until May 2018.
The tribunal rejected the child’s appeal on credibility grounds. The judicial review challenged its handling of two asserted risks: that the child might face FGM from her father’s family, and that she might be targeted because of her mother’s account of financial irregularities involving a former Nigerian state governor. The judgment records that the mother’s account of those events was rejected as incredible in the tribunal proceedings.
The applicant argued that the FGM claim was separate from her mother’s other claims and required an independent assessment, including consideration of country-of-origin material. The respondents relied on inconsistencies in the mother’s accounts, including her earlier statements that she had undergone FGM and her later admission at the tribunal hearing that she had not. They also cited earlier authority concerning a child’s claim that overlapped with a parent’s rejected claim.
The court distinguished between a child’s claim that depends on a parent’s rejected account and a separate claim raised for the child. It said the tribunal could rely on the mother’s rejected account when refusing the child’s related claim about risk from state authorities. As to FGM, the court accepted that this was presented as a separate claim, but found that the specific family-based risk had been rejected because of credibility concerns.
Relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in O.A.Y.A., the court held that the tribunal was not then required to consider whether general information about FGM in Nigeria established an independent risk to the child. It concluded that no basis for further consideration arose on the facts of this case.
The court refused leave. It did not grant the requested judicial review relief or overturn the tribunal’s decision.