The High Court refused relief in a judicial review challenge to a Refugee Appeals Tribunal decision that upheld a recommendation not to declare a mother and her two children refugees. The court concluded that the applicants had not shown substantial grounds for the challenge. It did not determine a separate protection assessment or any other process that might consider their circumstances on return to Nigeria.
The mother, a Nigerian national, came to Ireland on a visitor’s visa in April 2007. She has bipolar affective disorder and told the asylum authorities that she had been raped during seizures in Nigeria, feared further harm if returned, and considered treatment there inadequate. Her children were born in Ireland in 2008 and 2010. She applied for asylum in August 2011, after deportation orders had been made in June that year.
The Refugee Appeals Tribunal accepted that the mother had bipolar affective disorder but rejected the appeal on paper. Its decision referred to the delay in seeking asylum, her education and work history, treatment she had received in Nigeria, and its view that her fears did not establish persecution for a Convention reason. The children’s claims were treated as based on their mother’s claim.
In the judicial review, the applicants argued, among other points, that the Tribunal had not applied the UNHCR Handbook guidance for applicants whose mental or emotional condition may impede presentation of a claim, and had failed to assess the children’s circumstances independently. The respondents maintained that the record did not show the mother was unable to explain her case, and that no distinct basis for refugee status had been advanced for the children.
Justice Faherty was not persuaded that the mother’s illness had prevented her from presenting her claim. The judgment noted that the record showed she was receiving effective treatment in Ireland and contained no indication that she could not articulate her fears. The court therefore found no breach of the standard of extreme care required for a paper appeal.
On the children, the court found that the material put to the Tribunal did not identify an independent ground for refugee status or suggest they would face persecution because their mother had a mental illness. In those circumstances, the judge held that the Tribunal was not required to remit their claims for further investigation.
The court denied the relief sought. It said the family’s circumstances on return might be considered in another process, but that matter was outside the judicial review decision.