The High Court refused an application by H. O. to quash a Refugee Appeals Tribunal decision in her case, finding no basis to intervene in the Tribunal’s assessment of state protection and internal relocation.
H. O. sought judicial review of a Tribunal decision dated 6 October 2005, which was served by letter on 17 October that year. She said she had faced a threat of female genital mutilation (FGM) in Nigeria after marrying in September 2004. She claimed four men tried to restrain her, one raped her, and police did not act on her complaint. She said she later went to Benin, where she was hospitalised for nine days, and then Lagos before travelling to Ireland. She was pregnant at the time and feared she and her child would be forced to undergo FGM.
Her challenge focused on two issues: whether the Tribunal applied the wrong test for state protection, and whether it properly assessed relocation within Nigeria. She argued that the Tribunal’s statement that an applicant must explore “all possible options” required an endless series of complaints to police and other organisations. She also said the Tribunal gave inadequate weight to conflicting country of origin information and did not conduct a proper relevance and reasonableness analysis of relocation.
The respondents argued that the challenge was an appeal against the Tribunal’s factual findings in substance. They said the decision had to be read as a whole and applied the test in *Ward v. The Attorney General of Canada*: a person need not approach the state where it would be objectively unreasonable to expect them to seek protection. They also said the Tribunal had considered the information submitted by both sides, including material suggesting relocation within Nigeria was possible for women seeking to avoid FGM.
Mr Justice Hedigan said the phrase about exploring all possible options was too narrow when read alone. But, reading the decision as a whole, he found the Tribunal had adopted a broader approach and had not required H. O. to try every possible source of protection. The judge said the Tribunal had found a range of options was open to her beyond the police in her husband’s village, and that she had not used them.
The judge said the Tribunal was responsible for balancing the country of origin information, and that the High Court could not reassess that evidence as an appeal court absent a “glaring and manifest flaw”. He concluded that the Tribunal’s decision was fair, balanced and within its jurisdiction. The court refused the order sought; it did not substitute a new assessment of H. O.’s refugee claim.