The High Court dismissed a judicial review challenge brought for a Nigerian-born child whose refugee application had been refused. The child’s case argued that the Refugee Appeals Tribunal had wrongly affirmed the refusal, but the court found no basis to fault the Tribunal’s decision when read as a whole.
The child, identified in the judgment as N. P.I., was born in Ireland to Nigerian parents. Her mother and next friend, identified as F.J., said she had first tried to apply for asylum for her daughter in 2009, when the child was an infant. After a later application was accepted, the Refugee Applications Commissioner refused it. The Tribunal affirmed that refusal following an oral hearing in November 2011.
The mother’s account to the Tribunal included allegations that the child’s father had opposed the pregnancy, threatened her and had friends threaten her. She also said he had made allegations about her to authorities in Ireland. The Tribunal considered whether the child would face persecution from her father if she returned to Nigeria with her mother. It noted there was no evidence he lived in Nigeria and that the available evidence pointed to him living in Ireland. It also considered information about Nigerian police and judicial protection, and the possibility of relocation within Nigeria.
For the child, counsel argued that the Tribunal had not properly assessed the evidence of threats, the practical availability of state protection, or whether relocation would be reasonable for a young girl and her mother. Counsel also argued that the decision failed to engage with country information and the child’s best interests. The respondents submitted that the Tribunal’s conclusions were supported by the material before it, including evidence pointing to the father’s presence in Ireland and country information about state protection.
Justice Eagar acknowledged that the Tribunal had a heightened duty of care to consider the best interests of a child. He found, however, that the Tribunal had identified the evidence concerning the father’s apparent residence in Ireland and had considered the country-of-origin information relevant to state protection. The court said the difficult relationship between the parents, and evidence that the father had shown some interest in the child, did not amount to persecution on the material before it.
The court also considered the Tribunal’s view that internal relocation was available. It found that conclusion reasonable and said it could not find fault with it. At the end of the telescoped hearing, the High Court refused leave to apply for refugee status and dismissed the application for certiorari. The ruling therefore left the Tribunal’s decision affirming the refusal in place.