The High Court refused an application for leave to seek judicial review of a Refugee Appeals Tribunal decision rejecting a child’s application for refugee status. Mr Justice McDermott delivered judgment on 2 May 2014, finding that no substantial grounds for granting leave had been established.
The child, identified in the judgment as S.E., was born in Limerick in 2006. His mother applied for refugee status on his behalf, saying he could face danger and discrimination in Nigeria because she belonged to the Osu caste and his father was Igbo. She said her husband’s family regarded their relationship as unacceptable and might harm the child. The claim also raised the mother’s mental illness and her need for ongoing treatment and support.
A section 13 report recommended refusing the child’s application. It found no objective reason he could not live elsewhere in Nigeria, away from his father’s family, and considered it unlikely they would find him. The Tribunal later rejected the claim that he faced a well-founded risk of persecution because of his Osu background. It relied on country information about discrimination and the regional concentration of the caste system, and concluded that relocation outside Igbo areas was a reasonable option. It also considered the mother’s psychiatric history and the availability of treatment and family support in Nigeria.
The judicial review challenge included claims that the Tribunal had selectively assessed country information, failed to address risks linked to the mother’s mental health, and inadequately considered alleged past persecution and the child’s interests. The High Court rejected those arguments as either unsupported by the material or inconsistent with the Tribunal’s decision. It said the Tribunal had considered the relevant evidence, including the child’s circumstances and the mother’s medical reports.
The judgment also noted that the Tribunal’s report referred to the mother’s earlier asylum refusal, but the appendix contained only a notification letter, not the Tribunal’s decision itself. Further arguments about relocation, reliance on that earlier refusal and a protection regulation had not been included in the formal grounds. No application was made to amend them, and the court said it could not consider grounds that had not been advanced as part of the case.
The court refused leave to apply for judicial review. It did not itself decide the child’s refugee claim or make a new determination of his protection status.