The High Court dismissed a mother and child’s applications for judicial review of separate negative first-stage asylum recommendations, finding no error serious enough to justify quashing either decision.
The mother said she feared persecution by the family of her child’s father because they objected to the couple’s inter-religious relationship. She said the family had burned her house and shop. The child was born in Ireland, and his claim was presented as linked to his mother’s.
The court examined the mother’s challenge to the Refugee Applications Commissioner’s recommendation. It found that the decision maker had misstated part of her evidence about travelling to Ireland: she had said she used a fake passport, not that she travelled without a passport or identification. The judge described this as a clear error.
However, the court held that the error was evaluative rather than jurisdictional and did not warrant certiorari. It found the mistaken description immaterial to the asylum claim because other parts of the travel evidence had been accurately summarised and rejected on credibility grounds. The judge also said the Refugee Appeals Tribunal could address the error on appeal, and that pursuing that appeal would not cause injustice.
The court rejected the mother’s other challenges. It found she had not established that the decision maker failed to consider relevant country information. It also concluded that the decision addressed internal relocation, including possible moves to Benin City or Port Harcourt, conditions there and the mother’s personal circumstances.
The judge held that the child’s claim had been assessed individually, despite being linked to his mother’s claim. The mother had accepted that the claims were the same, and the court found it appropriate for the child’s recommendation to reflect the outcome of her claim. It also rejected the argument that the mother should have been given a copy of her recommendation before the child’s interview, finding no evidence that decision makers knew of the outcome at that time.
The court dismissed both applications. It did not decide the asylum claims afresh or grant refugee status; it refused the requested judicial review relief, leaving the applicants to pursue the available administrative appeals.