The High Court refused leave to bring judicial review proceedings in three linked cases brought by a Nigerian mother, her husband and their young daughter. It also refused an extension of time sought by the father. The ruling did not grant or refuse asylum; it decided whether the applicants could proceed with their proposed judicial reviews.
The judgment, delivered by Mr Justice McDermott on 19 December 2013, concerned challenges to decisions of the Refugee Appeals Tribunal and the Minister for Justice. The family’s claims included allegations that the father faced threats from members of the Movement for the Emancipation of the Niger Delta (MEND), and that the daughters faced female genital mutilation (FGM) from the father’s family. Those were claims made in the asylum proceedings, not findings by the High Court.
The Tribunal had rejected the parents’ accounts, citing inconsistencies in the father’s account of joining MEND and of warning an oil company about a planned attack. It also rejected the mother’s FGM claim, noting that the family had lived in Bayelsa State for more than two years without further trouble over the issue. In the daughter’s case, the Tribunal relied on the parents’ rejected accounts and on conflicting statements by the mother about whether the two older daughters had undergone FGM.
The mother argued that the Tribunal had wrongly treated relocation within Nigeria as an answer to the FGM concern, relied improperly on her husband’s decision, used inadequate country information and took too long to decide her appeal. The High Court rejected those grounds. It said the family’s earlier move to Bayelsa was relevant, and found no evidence of bias or prejudice from the delay. It concluded that she had not shown substantial grounds for judicial review and refused her application.
The father challenged the refusal of refugee status, the refusal of subsidiary protection and the deportation order. His application to challenge the Tribunal’s refugee decision was brought more than a year after notification, and the court found no sufficient reason to extend time. It also found no substantial grounds to challenge the subsidiary protection decision or deportation order. The judgment records that he had been deported to Nigeria on 12 March 2013, after failing to obtain an injunction.
The court found that the daughter’s grounds—including challenges concerning prioritisation of Nigerian asylum applications, delay, internal relocation and the effectiveness of judicial review—did not establish substantial grounds for leave. In its conclusion, the court refused leave in all three cases and refused extensions of time where required.