The High Court has refused Ms P’s application to quash the International Protection Appeals Tribunal’s decision refusing her refugee status and subsidiary protection. Mr Justice Max Barrett ruled on 22 July 2021 that the tribunal’s process, reasoning and decision disclosed no legal basis for the relief she sought.
Ms P said she feared forced female genital mutilation by her uncle and family in Country Z. She alleged that her uncle had arranged for her to undergo the procedure, that she had been kidnapped and detained, and that a cousin deliberately struck her with a car when she escaped. She said she later left Country Z for Ireland. The tribunal did not accept these claims.
The court reviewed the tribunal’s credibility assessment, which relied on inconsistencies and the relationship between Ms P’s account and other material. Among the issues were her evidence that she had a mobile phone during a two-day alleged detention but did not call for help; her return to City A after years living and working without reported harm in City B; and the chronology of her visa application. The tribunal found that her Irish visa application was completed in 2013, with proposed travel dates that preceded events she later said explained her desperation to leave.
The judgment also discussed discrepancies about Ms P’s marital status and the name given on the visa application. The court said these matters had been put to her and that she had an opportunity to respond. It accepted the tribunal’s treatment of a medical report concerning Ms P’s sister: the report did not state a cause of death or mention female genital mutilation, and therefore did not establish that the practice contributed to her death.
The court said the case turned on credibility, not on whether Country Z would provide state protection. Because the tribunal did not find that Ms P faced serious harm, it had not gone on to assess state protection. The court also noted that the tribunal had seen Ms P give evidence, while the court had not.
All reliefs sought were refused, leaving the tribunal’s decision in place. The judge indicated that costs should be ordered against Ms P because her application had failed, but said a costs hearing would be scheduled if a party objected within 14 days of judgment delivery.