The High Court has granted limited leave to challenge a decision refusing refugee status to a woman and her two minor children, finding an arguable case that an error about police protection in Lagos affected the credibility assessment and the state-protection analysis.
Mr Justice Clarke delivered the judgment on 24 June 2005. The application sought leave under section 5 of the Illegal Immigrants (Trafficking) Act 2000 to challenge a Refugee Appeals Tribunal decision upholding an earlier recommendation to refuse refugee status. The court had to decide whether the proposed grounds met the threshold of substantial grounds. It did not determine the underlying refugee claim or quash the Tribunal’s decision.
The woman’s stated fear was that her daughters would be subjected to female genital mutilation by her boyfriend’s family. The Tribunal relied in part on her not having sought police or other state protection while living in Port Harcourt and later in Lagos. The High Court said the country information before the Tribunal indicated that female genital mutilation was not unlawful in Lagos. It was therefore arguable that the Tribunal erred in assuming police protection would have been available there, when the evidence did not support that assumption and pointed the other way.
The judge found that the alleged error was potentially material to the Tribunal’s adverse credibility finding and its conclusion that adequate state protection had not been shown to be unavailable. He held that the applicants had made out substantial grounds to challenge those two aspects of the decision.
Other proposed grounds did not meet the leave threshold. The judge found no independent basis to challenge the Tribunal’s treatment of the children because, on the facts presented, their claims depended on the mother’s fear. He said forced marriage had not been raised in the appeal or at the Tribunal hearing, so the Tribunal could not be criticised for not addressing it. He also concluded that the Tribunal had not relied on internal relocation as a basis for refusing refugee status; the issue of the guidelines for assessing relocation therefore did not arise.
The court rejected broader credibility complaints, including challenges concerning missing identity documents and the woman’s account of arriving at Dublin Airport. It directed the parties to try to agree an amended statement of grounds confined to the two permitted issues: whether the credibility decision and the state-protection decision were tainted by an error of fact.