The High Court dismissed a minor’s challenge to a first-instance refugee decision, rejecting three grounds of judicial review. It also said the Refugee Appeals Tribunal should now process her appeal, which had been postponed while the court case was pending.
The applicant, identified as H. T. K., was born in Ireland in 2006 and is a Nigerian citizen. Her mother, P. A. K., made a refugee status claim on her behalf in 2010. The fears put forward included forced marriage, pressure to practise Islam, being tattooed and female genital mutilation (FGM).
A report prepared under section 13 of the Refugee Act 1996 found the claim not credible, citing the mother’s continued contact with the applicant’s father and inconsistencies in her account of the risk to her daughter. The High Court rejected the argument that the report had failed to address the alleged FGM risk. The judge said the decision-maker had rejected the mother’s claimed fear of harm from the father, including the asserted FGM risk. He found no legal or jurisdictional error, and said any lack of detail would not justify the court quashing the decision.
The applicant also argued that the report wrongly placed the burden on her to provide “clear and convincing” evidence that state protection in Nigeria was unavailable. The judge followed an earlier High Court decision recognising that burden. He added that, in this case, the assessment of state protection relied on country information about government and private organisations, rather than being determined by the presumption alone. He therefore rejected this ground as well.
On the third ground, the court found that state protection and the possibility of internal relocation had been considered separately, despite appearing under a joint heading in the report. The judge dismissed the judicial review.
The judgment noted that the proceedings had taken five years and that the applicant’s appeal to the Refugee Appeals Tribunal had been lodged in time, but was postponed at her request until the court case ended. The judge said the Tribunal should determine appeals as soon as reasonably possible and could stay an appeal only if the High Court ordered it. He directed the Tribunal to process this appeal now. The judgment did not decide whether the applicant qualified for refugee status; that remained for the Tribunal to consider.